Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-18; Planning Commission; ; GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLANTho City of Carlsbad Planning Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ltem No. 0 Application complete date: N/A P.C. AGENDA OF: April 18, 2018 Project Planner: Scott Donnell Project Engineer: N/ A SUBJECT: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014) - VfLLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -Request for a recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a recommendation to approve a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Village and Barrio Master Plan. The request also includes a recommendation to repeal the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The Notice of Intent (NOi) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper February 12, 2016, and sent to the State Clearinghouse {SCH#2016021056) for a 30-day public review (February 16, 2016-March 16, 2016). The Village and Barrio are generally west of interstate 5 and between Laguna Drive and Tamarack Avenue in the city's Northwest Quadrant and local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7293 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 16-01), Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 16·01), Zone Change (ZC 16-01), Master Plan (MP 14-01), and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 14-01), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and RECOMMEND APPROVAL of errata dated April 18, 2018. II. OVERVIEW The Village and Barrio Master Plan (Master Plan) is a city-initiated proposal to provide the vision, goals and polkies, regulations, guidelines, and procedures for land use and development within the Village and Barrio areas of the City. The document updates and replaces entirely the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual, adopted by the City in December 1995 and periodically amended since. The document also provides for t he first time a master plan and area-specific standards for the Barrio; presently, t he Barrio is regu lated by the Zoning Ordinance. In both the Barrio and Village, the Master Plan would not change overall land use patterns, revise current residential densities or significantly modify building height and other development standards. Core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision emphasize enhancing the city's small town feel and beach community character and connectedness, increasing travel options through means other than the automobile, and revitalizing its neighborhoods. Moreover, the Carlsbad Community Vision specifically identifies the objectives of Village revitalization and Barrio rejuvenation. Consistent with the vision, a fiscal year 2017-2018 City Council goal is to "enhance the health and vitality of the Village and Barrio, two neighborhoods that represent the historic heart of Carlsbad." In turn, the work plan for this goal identifies strategies to improve public spaces and infrastructure, promote a vibrant mix of commercial GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 2 and residential uses, and foster a greater sense of connectedness. Completing and approving the Village and Barrio Master Plan is a work plan task. Over forty percent of the Village and Barrio Master Plan area is in the Coastal Zone. If City Council approves the Master Plan, it will not be effective in the Coastal Zone unless also approved by the California Coastal Commission. As part of this action, the Coastal Commission will also consider combining the present Village Area Local Coastal Program segment with a portion of the Mello II local Coastal Program segment so the result is a single, unified segment corresponding with the area of the Master Plan. Project applications, including a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment1 Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, are necessary for Master Plan implementation. Another application, a Municipal Code Amendment {MCA 16-01), is proposed and recommends only minor changes to portions of the Municipal Code other than the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed revisions consist of replacing references to the "Village Master Plan and Design Manual" and "Village Review Area " that will become out of date with approval of the Village and Barrio Master Plan. As changes to Municipal Code chapters besides the Zoning Ordinance are not in the Planning Commission's purview, MCA 16-01 would be acted on by City Council. The proposed master plan, previous drafts and other information are available for review on the project website, www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio. Since its release this January, staff has made revisions to the Master Plan. The revisions are contained in errata provided as Attachment 9. Ill. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Master Plan has been developed in consultation with the Carlsbad community through an iterative process that began in 2013. In September 2014, the city received significant public input during an approximately two-week public charrette held in various locations in the Village and Barrio. The city released the first and second drafts in November 2015 and April 2016, respectively. Based on extensive public interest and input following the second draft's release, the city determined to prepare a third draft. Informed by the community's comments, the Planning Commission in October 2016 considered and confirmed the items staff would revise or study for potential revision in the third draft. The list of these items, taken from Planning Commission Resolution 7207, and how the revised Master Plan addressed them, is provided as Attachment 8 to this staff report. Development of the third draft took place over much of 2017; the city released it for public review on January 19, 2018. The Master Plan incorporates many of the community's recommendations for both the vision and future development within the Village and Barrio as expressed over the plan's development. Notice of the Master Plan's development and meetings has included mailings to all Village and Barrio property owners and tenants, postings on social media and the city's website, and outreach to various city committees and local groups. The city has provided resources for Spanish speakers during much of the plan's development and targeted Hispanic outreach occurred in both 2017 and 2018. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014}-VILLAGE ANO BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 3 Master Plan Appendix D provides a chronology of the plan's development. The project website also contains a brief timetable, videos and other past meeting information and additional resources. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Proposed Master Plan Organization The Master Plan contains the implementation strategy, standards, and criteria for development within the Village and Barrio, per the vision the document identifies, The Master Plan is divided into six chapters and four appendices, as summarized below: • Chapter 1 (Introduction) contains the overall vision, goals and policies, and key improvement recommendations. • Chapter 2 (Land Use) contains the regulatory requireme.nts, such as the permitted uses, development standards, and design guidelines. • Chapter 3 (Signs) contains standards for design and placement of signs. • Chapter 4 (Mobility and Beautification) outlines and discusses overall and conceptual improvements to public areas, such as streets and sidewalks; a bicycle network plan; and parking and transportation demand management strategies. • Chapter 5 (Implementation) provides an implementation and phasing plan for Master Plan public improvements as well as potential improvement funding sources. • Chapter 6 (Administration) details Master Plan permit and review requirements and administrative procedures for amendments to the Master Plan. • The appendices provide supporting information, such as definitions, economic and demographic data, additional information regarding funding sources, and a Master Plan chronology. For purposes of this staff report, the "Village" is that area with a present General Plan designation of "V" (Village) and zoning of "V-R" (Village Review). All properties with this designation and zoning are also within the boundaries of the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual, except for four properties near Carlsbad Boulevard that are partially or wholly outside the existihg plan but would be included in the proposed plan. More discussion ab9ut them can be found in the "Existing and Proposed General Plan, Zoning, and Land Use Districts" section below. The "Barrid' is the area outside the Village Master Plan and Design Manual boundaries and generally south of Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue and between Interstate Sand the railroad corridor. The Barrio area as contained in the proposed Master Plan excludes Jefferson Elementary School, adjacent residential areas to the north, south, and west, and the commercial properties along Tamarack Avenue between Interstate 5 and Jefferson Avenue. Please refer to Section 1.3.1 in the Master Plan on page 1-2 for additional discussion and accompanying Figure 1-1 for the Master Plan Area map. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 4 Vision As identified in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan, the vision for the Village and Barrio is as follows: Carlsbad's Village and Barrio are vibrant, safe and healthy neighborhoods that: • Serve as the historic heart of the city, honoring Carlsbad's past and creating a strong sense of community. • Are connected in place and spirit, yet retain their unique personalities. • Embody the principles of smart growth, with a mix of commercial and residential land uses, a variety of housing choices, walkable neighborhoods and multiple transportation options. • Attract high quality, sustainable development t hat enhances vitality and local character. To reinforce the vision, goals and policies have been established to guide public and private development within the Village and Barrio. Each goal and policy links to one or more aspects of the Master Plan vision. In tum, the plan's provisions, whether a development standard, permitted use or recommended improvement, align with and support the goals and policies. The goals and policies are identified in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan and fall into the following four categories: • Land use and community character; • Mobility and parking; • Connectivity; and • Placemaking. The Master Plan is intended to enhance future development of the Village and Barrio areas, particularly relative to the street experience, public spaces, and through appropriate development standards and guidelines. The Master Plan has several focuses, including maintaining and enhancing the Village as a community focal point and the Barrio as predominantly residential area; promoting development that protects and enhances the character of both neighborhoods yet provides enough flexibility and opportunity for quality growth; creating "livable streets" that balance different modes of transportation; creating magnetic public spaces; and maximizing connectivity within the planning area, with adjacent neighborhoods, and with the beach. Generally, the recommendations presented in the Master Plan for improvements to Village and Barrio streets and properties are in a conceptual form only and are intended to be refined over time as future project-specific development is planned by the private and public sectors. Implementation of the recommendations also would be subject to further and separate review, analysis and approval. Examples of these conceptual improvements include street, bicycle, and pedestrian enhancements to Grand Avenue (the ''Grand Avenue Promenade'') and the west end of Carlsbad Village Drive. These and other key recommendations are highlighted in Master Plan Section 1.6 (beginning on page 1-20) and discussed elsewhere. Furthermore, while the Master Plan is guided by the vision established through community input, regulations, policies, studies and other guidance have also influenced the preparation of this plan. These GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 5 other influences include, but are not limited to, the Carlsbad Community Vision, General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Climate Action Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance and the 2017 Parking Management Plan for the Village, Barrio, and Beach Area; a complete listing is contained in the Section 1.7 starting on page 1-24. Existing and Proposed General Plan, Zoning, and Land Use Districts To support the Master Plan, the underlying General Plan designations, zoning, and land use districts currently in place within the Master Plan area would change. For example, the present Village {V) designation and Village-Review {V-R) zoning now applied to the Village would be revised to include and recognize the Barrio, resulting in a new proposed designation and zoning of V-B, Village-Barrio. The Master Plan would establish new land use districts that would replace the existing districts of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. These new districts would also regulate land uses and replace existing zoning currently in place in the Barrio. Table 1 below compares existing and proposed land use districts in the Village as well as General Plan designations, zoning, and density. Table 2 that follows provides similar information for the Barrio. The tables also compare existing and proposed building heights, as this is a point of community interest. Attachment 4 to this staff report maps the boundaries of the existing and proposed districts and Attachments 5 and 6 show proposed district boundaries in relation to existing General Plan designations and zoning. In addition, more information on the existing and proposed districts is provided after the tables below in the discussion on the Master Plan Land Use Chapter. Table 1 -Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan -basic land use comparison, including building height (Village) Existing Proposed Land Existing Proposed Existing and Existing and Land Use Use District General Plan General Plan Proposed Proposed District and Zoning and Zoning Density Maximum Building Height 1-Village VC-Village V -Village V-B -Village-28-35 du/ac 45' Center Center Barrio V-R -Village Review 2-Office vc V, V-R V-B 28-35 du/ac 45' Support 3-Freeway FC-Freeway V, V-R V-B 28-35 du/ac 45' Commercial Commercial Support 4-vc V, V-R V-8 28-35 du/ac 45' Residential Support GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 6 Table 1 -Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Bardo Master Plan -basic land use comparison, including building height (Village) 5-Hispanic PT-Pine-Tyler V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 30' (existing), Mixed-Use Mixed-Use 35' {proposed) Support 6-Service PT V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 35' Commercial Support 7 -VG -Village V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 35' Residential General Support 8-VG V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 35' Residential Support 9-Tourism HOSP-V, V-R V-B 18-23 du/ac 45' Support Hospitality Notes: • "V-B," Village-Barrio, is used for both the proposed General Plan designation and zoning . • "du/ac" means dwelling units per acre . Note that Table 1 identifies identical existing and proposed maximum building heights in all but one area, the existing Hispanic Mixed-Use Support District/proposed Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use District. For this area, a five-foot increase in the maximum height is recommended {from 30-feet to 35-feet) as all surrounding permitted maximum heights are either 35-feet or 45-feet. Unlike the Village, the Barrio is presently not divided into land use districts and instead has traditional General Plan designations implemented by corresponding zoning. However, land use districts are proposed. Table 2 below compares existing and proposed General Plan designations, zoning, density, proposed districts, and existing and proposed building heights. Attachment 4 maps the boundaries of the proposed districts in the Barrio and Attachments 5 and 6 show proposed district boundaries in relation to existing General Plan designations and zoning. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e7 Table Z -Existing General Plan Designations and Zoning & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan - basic land use comparison, including building height (Barrio) Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Land Existing and Existing and General Zoning General Plan Use District Proposed Proposed Plan and Zoning Density Maximum Building Height R-15-R-3 -Multi-V-B -Village-BC-Barrio 8-15 du/ac 35' Residential Family Barrio Center Residential; RD-M- ~esidential Density- Multiple R-30-RD-M V-B BP -Barrio 23-30 du/ac 35' Residential Perimeter GC-C-2 -General V-B PT -Pine-Tyler 15 du/ac 35' General Commercial Mixed-Use (existing) Commercial 18-23 du/ac (proposed) Notes: • "V-B," Village-Barrio, is used for both the proposed General Plan designation and zoning . • For properties designated "GC," the density stated is the minimum density and is based on 25% of the developable area. • "du/ac" means dwelling units per acre . Finally, portions of three properties and one entire property along or near Carlsbad Boulevard feature the existing Village General Plan designation and zoning of 11V" and "V-R" but are not within the boundaries of the existing master plan. As part of the approved update to the General Plan in September 2015, this designation and zoning were applied because two of the properties were partially within the plan boundaries and fully developed. The third and fourth properties were either partially within or wholly outside the plan boundaries but together formed the site of an approved hotel now under construction. As these properties have the Village General Plan designation and zoning, the proposed Master Plan would include them in its boundaries and place them within the HospitaHty District, the district to which each is adjacent. Table 3 provides details on the four properties' location, use, and existing and proposed land use information. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 8 Table 3 -Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan -basic land use.comparison Property Use/ Address Existing Proposed Proposed Land Proposed General Plan General Plan Use District Density and Zoning and Zoning Carlsbad by the Sea V-Village V-B -Village-HOSP-18-23 du/ac Retirement Community, Barrio Hospitality 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard V-R-Village Review SpringHill Suites (two V, V-R V-B HOSP 18-23 du/ac properties, under construction), 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard Best Western Beach View V, V-R V-B HOSP 18-23 du/ac Lodge, 3180 Carlsbad Boulevard Notes: • "V-B/' Village-Barrio, is used for both the proposed General Plan designation and zoning . • "du/ar!' means dwelling units per acre . Master Plan Land Use Chapter The Land Use section {Chapter 2) of the document is divided into the following main parts: Master Plan Districts, Land Uses, Density and Excess Dwelling Unit Bank information, Area-wide and Supplemental District standards, and Design Guidelines. Information on each of these is presented below. • Master Plan Districts. The Master Plan presents a district-based zoning approach to guide the form and location of development within the Master Plan area. In a district-based zoning approach, each land use district has a unique vision and the desired activities and building forms dictate what is -allowed and what is not allowed. To do this, the Master Plan divides the Village .and Barrio into eight different districts. A description of each district, based on the descriptions contained in the Master Plan, follows. Also included below is the current Village Master Plan Design Manual district or Barrio General Plan land use designation and zoning that would be replaced. (Note that some existing districts have the same name.) o The Village Center District (Ve) would replace the present District 1, Carlsbad Village Center; District 2, Office Support; and District 4, Residential Support. The VC District encompasses the core of the Village and includes a mix of commercial, attached residential, and mixed- use building types. This district intends buildings to be generally attached and built on or near the front property line, creating, throughout most of the district, a continuous commercial street frontage (often with residences or offices above) to provide destinations GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 9 and workplaces in a walkable environment that is centered around the main destinations of tl')e Carlsbad Village Station, State Street, Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive. A portion of this district, centered along Carlsbad Village Drive, is in the Coastal Zone. o The Village General District {VG) would replace current districts 7 and 8 (Office Support and Residential Support, respectively). The VG District provides an opportunity to expand the mix of commercial and residential uses into a broader geographic area in the northern part of the Village, roughly from Roosevelt Street east to Jefferson Street. o The Hospitality District {HOSP) would replace current District 9, Tourism Support. The boundaries of both the existing and proposed districts are identical and encompass properties along both sides of Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed HOSP District provides a transition between the beach and the heart of the Village. The area currently contains mixed-use buildings, dense residential buildings, and a number of large and expansive uses, including a private school, church, lodging, and a retirement community. The area is contained entirely within the Coastal Zone and provides an opportunity for visitor-serving and hospitality uses serving visitors and residents alike, with ground floor commercial uses primarily catering to visitors. o The Freeway Commercial District (FC) would replace the current District 3, Freeway Commercial Support; both districts' boundaries are identical and extend from Interstate 5 west to the Hope Avenue alley just east of Harding Street. The FC District consists of traveler services normally associated with urban freeway interchanges. Uses include lodging, restaurants, retail and gas stations. Residential units are also included in this district. o The Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use District (PT) would take the place of current districts 5 and 6 (Service Commercial Support and Hispanic Mixed-Use Support, respectively). The PT District is a distinct area of transition between the more compact Village Center District and established multi-and single-family neighborhoods in the Barrio. The distrJct contains residential, commercial, and office uses in the vicinity of Roosevelt Avenue and Tyler Street south of Oak Avenue. On the west side of Tyler Street, these uses mix with light industrial uses. The PT District would also include two commercially-designated lots along the south side of Walnut Avenue between Roosevelt Street and the alley to the east. These lots are just outside the boundary of current District 5. o The Barrio Perimeter District (BP) applies to the Barrio and would not replace any existing district; instead, it would replace the existing residential high density General Plan land use designation and zoning found along the perimeter of the Barrio. However, no change in permitted densities would occur. The BP District is residential in nature and includes the properties located adjacent to 1-5, Jefferson Elementary School, and the railroad corridor. A portion is in the Coastal Zone. o The Barrio Center District (BC) is residential in nature and is intended to protect and enhance the historic Barrio residential neighborhood, which contains a number of smaller homes and duplexes and some multi-family structures in the "core" of the Barrio. This core is roughly bounded by Pine and Magnolia avenues and Harding and Roosevelt streets. As with the BP District, it would not replace any existing district and instead would replace a residential General Plan land use designation and zoning that permit medium densities. No change in permitted density is proposed. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 10 o The Village-Barrio Other District (VBO) includes public and quasi-public properties within the Master Plan Boundary, including the railroad corridor south of Oak Avenue, Magee, Maxton Brown, Pine Avenue parks, Chase Field, and the AT&T switching facility on Harding Street. As a reflection of their use and ownership, VBO properties are subject to the permitted uses and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and not the Village and Barrio Master Plan; however, they would be subject to the Master Plan area-wide design guidelines. The VBO designation is supplemented by a letter des\gnation to further clarify its application. "VBO-P," for example, applies to all three city parks and Chase Field in the Master Plan area. See Section 2.7.8 on page 2-69 of the Master Plan for further details. • Land Uses. This section establishes the mix of land uses that reflect the intended vision of each district. A primary component of this section is Table 2-1, which identifies permitted, conditionally permitted, accessory, right-of-way, and prohibited uses. This table, beginning on page 2-6, greatly streamlines the permitted uses chart found in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Uses listed in Table 2-1 are either defined in Appendix A of the Master Plan or in Chapter 21.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. • Density, which refers to the number of dwelling units permitted per developable acre of property, would apply to all Master Plan districts. As noted in the tables above, proposed densities are expressed as a range (e.g., 28-35 dwelling units per acre, or "du/ac") and are consistent with the General Plan and Village Master Plan and Design Manual. • Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. This section clarifies that projects proposing dwelling units in some districts require an allocation of excess dwelling units from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. For projects proposing dwelling units in the Village Center {VC), Village General {VG), Hospitality (HOSP), Freeway Commercial (FC), and Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use (PT) districts, as well as projects in the Barrio Perimeter (BP) and Barrio Center (BC) districts that propose densities above the City's Growth Management Control Point, an allocation is necessary. VC, VG, HOSP, FC and PT district properties do not have residential densities assigned for Growth Management Program compliance purposes. • Area-Wide Standards would be applicable to projects in many or all of the Village and Barrio, regardless of district. These standards provide requirements related to site planning, building placement and orientation, building elements, outdoor and right-of-way uses, and parking. This section also identifies provisions for standards modifications, and general development information. Area-wide standards are supported by simple graphics. Regarding outdoor and right-of-way uses, the Master Plan permits and updates the standards for sidewalk cafes, outdoor displays, and outdoor dining o.n private property, all uses found in the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual. Further, the Master Plan also proposes to allow curb cafes, which were previously permitted by a City Council pilot program that expired in 2016. As proposed, curb cafes would be permitted in a larger area than allowed by the expired policy but would continue to be defined as temporary structures and subject to removal if necessary due to street maintenance or improvements or if necessary to ensure adequate public parking is maintained. • Supplemental District Standards would be applicable to each of the eight proposed districts. These standards would be appli_ed according to the location of the proposed development and/or activity. The standards would address building coverage, height, and setback, and other requirements GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014} -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 11 applicable to development. Similar to the area-wide standards, the supplemental requirements also are supported by simple graphics. • Area-Wide Design Guidelines. The design guidelines, described in further detail below, are intended to implement and enhance the exfsting character within the Village and Barrio as new development and property improvements occur. Design Guidelines Near the end of Chapter 2, beginning on page 2-71, design guidelines are proposed. Generally, they would apply to all development except for those determined exempt in Section 6.3.2 on page 6-3. The guidelines aim to improve the character of the Village and Barrio while also improving livability. Guidelines address many components of building style and orientation, including site layout, parking and access, plazas and open space, building massing and form, roof forms, building fai;:ades, and appurtenances. The design guidelines proposed do not dictate a particular architectural style or comprise every possible strategy for achieving high quality design but provide a minimum starting point for quality development. They also strive to foster authentic designs with straightforward and functional construction. And, unlike the current Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the text of the proposed guidelines is supported by Carlsbad-appropriate pictures to better convey the part of the guidelines' intent, which is "to implement and enhance the existing character within the Village and Barrio as new development and property improvements occur." As stated in the Master Plan, all development should align with the spirit and intent of the design guidelines. Designers and developers should be aware that these guidelines are a minimum starting point for quality development, and do not comprise every possible strategy for achieving high quality design. Therefore, it is prudent that designers use their own techniques for achieving authentic, high quality design. Sign Standards The standards set forth in Chapter 3 of the Master Plan apply to all new signs, replacement signs or modifications to existing signs within the Village and Barrio, unless otherwise exempt. The Master Plan standards take precedence over the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance sign standards (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.41), unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Master Plan provides a list of permitted and prohibited signs, as well as standards for specific types of signs. Preparation of Chapter 3 included a comprehensive review of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual sign standards. These standards are in many cases uniquely tailored to the Village and include some sign types {e.g., restaurant menu sign, yard sign) not explicitly permitted elsewhere in Carlsbad. Proposed revisions to the existing sign standards maintain many of the unique provisions but also result in their reorganization and simplification. In some cases, standards were also revised to be more in line with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which has had the benefit of more frequent updating, often based on case law. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 12 Mobility and Beautification Consistent with the General Plan and the Master Plan vision, the future of the Village and Barrio is envisioned to be a walkable environment. However, other modes of transportation would be accommodated to benefit the bicyclist, motorist, rideshare user and transit user as well. As envisioned by the Master Plan in Chapter 4, the existing circulation system would be enhanced through a variety of street, parking, and pedestrian/bicycle and other potential mobility improvements based not only on current but emerging and future technologies as well. All mobility recommendations are developed around guiding principles of establishing connections and infrastructure for all modes of travel; embracing a variety of transportation options; and creating a "park once'' strategy in the Village that enables and encourages visitors to park once and move around the Village on foot, by bike, or· other alternative mode of transportation. In Chapter 4, the Master Plan recommends that existing streets be retrofitted with wider sidewalks, bike infrastructure, trees, better lighting, and bu ried/relocated overhead utilities to improve walkability and appearance. Street improvements would feature a balance of different modes of transportation, and include infrastructure to support all roaciway users, such as the addition of on-street parking through restriping and curb cut closures, protected bike lanes (cycle tracks), or a pedestrian promenade along Grand Avenue. The Grand Avenue Promenade would provide sufficient width to accommodate pedestrians, as well as outdoor dining, public activities and a protected bike lane, in lieu of one-half of the current street. Although not proposed as part of the Master Plan, the Master Plan acknowledges and integrates two major transportation-related projects which may affect the Village and Barrio, and which would improve connectivity with the planning area and its surroundings, a Master Plan goal. The first is the proposal by the North County Transit District (NCTD) and SANDAG to double-track the rail line through the area. In addition to the plans to double-track the rail lines, the City and SANDAG are currently studying the feasibility and environmental impacts of putting the rail lines in a below-street-level trench to reduce noise and safety impacts, and allow more linkage between areas currently separated by the rail lines. The second major transportation-related project regards the North Coast Corridor Project, which is the proposal to widen 1-5 and make related improvements. Transportation enhancements in local communities, which accompany the plans to widen 1-5 in the northern part of the county, offer another opportunity to enhance mobility in the Master Plan area. These enhancements would be funded by the California Department of Transportatibn (CaltransL and could include "gateway" treatments, widened sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and street trees. As freeway design proceeds, the City would continue to work with Caltrans to improve east-west connections across 1-5 for all modes of transportation (including pedestrians and cyclists), including Carlsbad Village Drive, Chestnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue. In addition to the mobility and circulation system improvements and appearance enhancements noted above, Chapter 4 concludes with a section entitled "Implement Parking and Transportation Demand Strategies." This section is based on the 2017 Parking Management Plan for the Village, Barrio, and Beach Area (PMP), accepted by City Council in September 2017. The PMP began with a comprehensive study capturing the existing parking conditions in the Master Plan and adjacent beach areas, including parking occupancy and duration data. Key recommendations and strategies from the PMP are incorporated into this Master Plan for implementation. The PMP provides implementable short-term (by year 2020), medium-term (by year 2025), and long-term (by year 2035) strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the parking system and increase mobility within the Village and Barrio. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e13 Consistent with the PMP, the Master Plan recommends that the city implement a comprehensive parking management program to strengthen and improve shared parking in the area and implement other parking management and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to create a more balanced and efficient parking system. TOM consists of programs, policies and actions that aim to reduce reliance on solo-occupant vehicle use, in part by providing more options for getting around. The goals, policies, standards and programs identified in the Master Plan support the vision to more fully transform the Village and Barrio into a vibrant, walkable community, supported by a mix of uses and transit options. An important outcome will be to shift people from vehicle-focused travel, and more use of other modes: walking, bicycling and transit. Further, the PMP analyzed and supported the parking requirements contained in the prior, April 2016 draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan. Parking provisions, including ratios, shared parking standards, and in lieu fee requirements are contained in the area-wide standards found in Chapter 2. The parking ratios listed in Chapter 2 are similar to those in the April 2016 draft. Master Plan Implementation Helping to achieve the Master Plan vision and General Plan goals are sections on Implementation (Chapter 5) and Administration (Chapter 6). Chapter 5 responds in part to community comments requesting an implementation plan for improvements and recommendations identified in the Master Plan. Chapter 6 proposes review and approval requirements for development. The requirements are streamlined compared to the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual and similar to how projects are reviewed and permitted in the rest of Carlsbad. The Implementation Chapter identifies the fiscal benefits of redevelopment, outlines potential funding sources for public improvements, and provides an Implementation Action Matrix (Table 5-1, beginning on page 5-8). The matrix, applying mainly to public projects, groups the Master Plan's key project and program recommendations into specific categories {e.g., regulatory programs, plans and studies; capital improvements; parking management; transportation demand management; and railroad corridor), and proposes an initial phasing plan and general implementation time frames. Phasing of Master Plan public improvements helps identify what is most important to implement in the Village and Barrio and also aids the city in developing its capital improvement program. Administration of the Master Plah, as presented in Chapter 6, would be conducted through a permit process, administered by the City Planner, that establishes improvements and activities that (1) are exempt from a discretionary permit, or (2) require a discretionary permit. A discretionary permit requires the approval of the City Planner, Planning Commission, or City Co.uncil. Such projects, which would include most hew construction, would be subject to the design guidelines contained in Chapter 2, Exempt projects, such as some additions and exterior improvements that do not intensify the use of a structure, would not be subject to the design guidelines. While considered an exempt project, a proposal to build one single-family home would subject to the "Residential Design" section only of the design guidelines; these guidelines are found in Section 2.8.3 Fon page 2-85. Under the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual, projects are permitted as either "Administrative Review Permits," "Minor Review Permits" or "Major Review Permits." Similar to what would be allowed under the proposed plan, projects under the current plan may also be exempt from the need to obtain one of these review permits, such as interior or exterior remodels, repair and maintenance activities, and landscaping. Further, the existing Master Plan does not require conditional GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 {DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 14 use permits as in t he rest of Carlsbad; instead some uses are classified as "provisional land uses," which may be permitted under any one of the review permits identified above. Additionally, the permitting of new building construction and additions under the current plan is based on building permit valuation as follows: • New construction of building(s) or addition{s) to the building footprint which has a building permit valuation which is less than $60,000 -Administrative {City Planner) approval; • New construction of building(s) or addition(s) to the building footprint which has a building permit valuation which is equal to or greater than $60,000 but less than $150,000 -Planning Commission approval; • New construction of building(s) or addition(s) to the building footprint which has a building permit valuation which is equal to or greater than $150,000-City Council approval. These valuations have not changed since adoption of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual in 1995. Because ofthe low valuation thresholds, most significant new building construction now proposed in the Village must go to City Council for approval. As proposed the Village and Barrio Master Plan, permit types would change to be like those required presently outside the Village, including the Barrio. This would include the replacement of provisional uses by conditional uses, or uses requiring a conditional use permit. In general, minor conditional use permits and minor site development plans would replace administrative review permits (including those for provisional uses), or those permits requiring City Planner approval. Conditional Use Permits and Site Development Plans would replace Minor Review Permits and Major Review Permits, or those permits requiring Planning Commission or City Council approval. In addition, projects within the Coastal Zone would continue to be subject to coastal permitting regulations; new buildings, for example, generally require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. Further} the proposed Master Plan would revise permitting thresholds to be similar to those in the rest of the city, meaning that they would be based on project size, not valuation. This would result in most significant new construction being considered by the Planning Commission only and would no longer require City Council approval unless appealed. Though a simplified version of the proposed Master Plan1s permitting thresholds, Table 4 below illustrates how typical projects would be permitted. Table 4 -Proposed Permitting Thresholds -Level of Approval Required Exempt City Planner Planning City Council Commission One single-family X dwelling Additions of less than ten percent of the internal floor X area Additions up to X 2,500 square feet GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN ' April 18, 2018 Pa e 15 Table' 4 -Proposed Permitting Thresholds -Level of Approval Required New buildings up to X 5,000 square feet New buildings with X 2 to 4 dwellings New buildings or additions over 5,000 X square feet New buildings with X 5 or more dwellings Master Plan X Amendments Notes: • City Planner decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission . • Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to the City Council. • Exception: In the Coastal Zone, a minor Coastal Development permit is required for a single- family dwelling, and may be required for certain additions. v. ANALYSIS A. General Plan The Village and Barrio Master Plan fulfills and is consistent with several General Plan goals and policies. Among these are Land Use and Community Design Element Policy 2-P.69, which calls for the comprehensive update of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, and Goal 2-G.31, which promotes "rejuvenation of the Barrio while maintaining its walkable, residential character, and ensuring that new development enhances neighborhood quality and character." These tie back to the Carlsbad Community Vision, discussed in the General Plan's Introduction and Vision Chapter, which specifically encourages revitalizing t he Village and rejuvenating the Barrio. Master Plan objectives to improve connectivity and overall circulation, including through streetscape beautification, are supported by Mobility Element goals. Moreover, because the Master Plan supports compact growth in a walkable environment, it also aligns with Sustainability Element Goal 9-G.3, which states, "promote energy efficiency and conservation in the community." The Master Plan also maintains consistency with the Housing Element by maihtaining residential densities currently allowed in the Village and Barrio and by permitting mixed use developments. Approval of the Master Plan will require revisions to the General Plan text and Land Use Map. These revisions are primarily minor and are necessary to recognize the Master Plan itself, the "Village-Barrio" land use designation and project aspects such as the Village Center, Hospitality, and other proposed land use districts. In addition, an amendment is proposed to Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element policies 4-P.6 and 4-P.7. This amendment clarifies t hat the properties designated "VBO-P" in the Village and Barrio Master Plan (which also have a corresponding General Plan designation of "V-B") shal l be considered open space areas and equivalent to those open space areas designated on the General Plan Land Use Map. This clarification is important as parks are typically designated by the General Plan as GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/lCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)-VlllAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 16 "open space." The "V-BO" designation would apply to Chase Fleld and Maxton Brown, Magee, and Pine Avenue parks. B. Zoning Ordinance The project would revise both the Zoning Ordinance text and map. Text changes are proposed to revise the many references throughout the Zoning Ordinance to the current Village Master Plan and Design Manual and current Village Review ("V-R11) Zone; these references would simply be replaced by "Village and Barrio Master Plan," "Village-Barrio" Zone, or the zone's "V-8" abbreviation. Similarly, the V-R Zone would be replaced QY the V-B Zone on the Zoning Map. Additionally, Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.35, which establishes the V-R Zone, would also be amended. According to the Intent and Purpose statement ofthis chapter (Section 21.35.010), the V-R zone "adopts the land use classifications and development standards of the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual as the zoning for the area designated." As proposed, the project would delete unnecessary sections in Chapter 21.35 (many of which simply duplicate information in the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual)1 and update sections as necessary to reflect the proposed Master Plan. Overall, proposed Zoning Ordinance text and map changes are minor but necessary and logical to ensure consistency among the city's land use documents. Changes to Chapter 21.35 also streamline and improve application of requirements by deferring to the Village and Barrio Master Plan for many standards rather than repeating them in the chapter. C. Local Coastal Program Portions of the Master Plan, together w ith the City's implementing ordinances, would serve as and would implement the local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio areas of the Coastal Zone, pursuant to the requirements of the California Coastal Act (see Section 6.2.1, page 6-1, for details). The Master Plan would establish the standards for all development within the Village and Barrio portions within the Coastal Zone, which equals about 149 acres or about 43 percent of the 350-acre Master Plan area. Additionally, the Coastal Zone in the Village and Barrio presently is divided into two different local Coastal Program segments -the Village Area segment and the Mello II segment. The Village Area segment boundary is generally the same as that of the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual, although the current Master Plan or its related V-R Zoning also encompass portions in the Mello II segment. The Mello II segment covers a significant part of the city's Coastal Zone, including nearly 40 acres in the Barrio. As proposed, those portion.s of the Village Area and Mello II segments within the boundaries of the proposed Master Plan would be combined into one segment -the "Village-Barrid' segment. This would enable uniform application of Coastal policies and standards across the Master Plan area. This change will require minor text and map revisions to the city's local Coastal Program document to reflect revised segment descriptions and areas. These changes, detailed in Exhibit ''2D" to Planning Commission Resolution 7294, contribute to improved and consistent application of Coastal Zone regulations in the Village and Barrio. GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014)-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 17 D. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance), Local Facilities Management Plans The Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan and as such is consistent with the city's Growth Management Program. The Master Plan does not propose changes to established density ranges or Growth Management Control Points and substantially ma1ntains the overall land use pattern existing in the Village and Barrio. In addition, the project does not conflict with public facilities relationships, including the relationship to the city's planned major circulation network. It is also consistent with the purpose and intent of the Growth Management Program, components of which are to provide quality housing opportunities for all households and to provide a balanced community with adequate commercial, industrial, recreational and open space areas to support the residential areas of the city. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Below is a summary of the environmental review conducted for the proposed Master Plan, including the environmental document prepared and circulated for public review, comment letters received and related city responses, and relevant provisions of state law. Complete information on the environmental review for the project is provided as part of attached Planning Commission Resolution 7293. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the Village and Barrio Master Plan. Drafting of the IS/MND included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure the implementation of identified mitigation measures. The Draft IS/MND, including the MMRP, was circulated for public review in early 2016, following release of the first Master Plan draft. During that time, the document was reviewed by various state and local agencies, as well as by interested individuals and organizations. The city received five comment letters. As part of the preparation of proposed (third draft) Master Plan, staff revised the 2016 Draft lS/MND as necessary to address the revised Master Plan. Revisions made are incorporated into the Final lS/MND, Exhibit "MND" to Planning Commission Resolution 7293. CEQA requires recirculation of a MND for public review when it has been substantially revised. An example of a substantial revision includes identification of a new, avoidable significant environmental effect requiring the addition of mitigation measures or project revisions to reduce the effect to insignificance. On the other hand, CEQA does not require recirculation when, for example, new information is added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the MND. No new information has been presented in the Final lS/MND that would require recirculation of the Draft lS/MND pursuant to CEQA. Specifically, no new significant environmental impacts would result from the modifications to the Master Plan or new information in the Final lS/MND. In addition, no substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts would occur. Impacts identified as less than significant in the Draft lS/MND would remain the same or be slightly reduced as a result of the revisions to the Master Plan. Revisions presented in the Final IS/MND are generally summarized as follows: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14"01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014} -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 18 • Updates to the IS Checklist format and discussion to be consistent with current city guidelines, including expanding the checklist for agricultural and forestry resources and providing a separate discussion of Tribal cultural resources per the 2018 CEQA Guidelines; • Updates to the regulatory framework to discuss the current applicable plans, policies, guidelines, and regulations that have been published or adopted subsequent to public circulation of the Draft IS/MND; • Minor revisions to address changes to the Master Plan boundary, vision and objectives, goals and policies, development standards, design guidelines, and implementation plan; • Updates to mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts to archaeological and pa leontological resources to reference the 2017 Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. The MMRP was revised accordingly as well; • Updated data and additional information to clarify and support the significance conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND; and • Revisions in response to comments received during public circulation. The Draft IS/MND included adequate information for a meaningful public review and comment; the Final IS/MND has not been changed in such a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Village and Barrio Master Plan or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid a substantial environmental effect. Based on the above considerations, recirculation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan is not warranted. Response to Comments Written comments were received during the 2016 public review period from the following agencies, provided in chronological order of comments received: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC}, San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG), and California Department ofTransportation (Caltrans). In addition, written comments were received from two individuals: John Bailey and Robert C. Ladwig. The comments and the city responses to them are provided as part of the Final IS/MND. Among other things, commenters express concerns regarding parking, recommend consideration of public safety needs when designing improvements near above grade rail crossings, and encourage railroad trenching, Master Plan compliance with regional smart growth publications, and appropriate analysis of improvements proposed near state facilities, such as Interstate 5. The city has provided responses to all comments received and in some cases has pror;iosed revisions to the Master Plan (as shown in the errata). These revisions are also reflected in the Final IS/MND. However, the revisions are not substantive. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7293 (MND) a. Exhibit "MND" 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 (GPA/ZCA/ZC/MP/LCPA} a. Exhibit "2A" -General Plan Amendment GPA 16-01 b. Exhibit "28" -Zone Code Amendment ZCA 16-01 and Zone Change ZC 16-01 c. Exhibit "2C" -Master Plan MP 14-01 (The VilJage and Barrio Master Plan, dated January 2018 and previously distributed with a copy available at the Planning Division and on the city's website at www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) d. Exhibit "2D" -Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 14-01 GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16·01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN April 18, 2018 Pa e 19 3. Location Map 4. Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual and Proposed Village & Barrio Master Plan Land Use Districts 5. Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan Land Use Districts with Existing General Plan Land Use 6. Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan Land Use Districts with Existing Zoning 7. Proposed text changes to the Zoning Ordinance shown in strikeout/underline format 8. Comparison of Master Plan with Planning Commission Resolution 7207 Exhibit A 9. Errata 10. Public comments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7293 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, WHICH WOULD REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO, AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN THE CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14- 01/MCA 16-01 (DEV 08014) WHEREAS, the City Planner has filed a verified application to adopt the Village and Barrio Master Plan, which would guide land use and development in the city's downtown Village and adjacent Barrio1 an approximately 350-acre area west of Interstate 5 and between Laguna Drive and Tamarack Avenue;and WHEREAS, a Draft Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Draft IS/MND") were prepared in conjunction with said project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, following release of the first draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan in November 2015, the city circulated the Draft IS/MND for public review from February 12 to March 16, 2016 and five comment letters and emails were received; subsequently, a second Master Plan draft was released in April 2016; and WHEREAS, in response to public interest and input on the first and second drafts of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, the city proceeded to prepare a third draft of the Master Plan, released for public review in January 2018; and WHEREAS, based on the latest Master Plan release, the city has considered and revised I.. as necessary the 2016 Draft IS/MND and has produced a Final IS/MND to incorporate the changes made; and WHEREAS, no new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require recirculation of the Draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073,5; and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, specifically, (1) no new significant environmental impacts would result from the modifications to the Master Plan or new information in the Final IS/MND; (2) no substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts would occur; (3) impacts identified as less than significant in the Draft IS/MND would remain the same or be slightly reduced as a result of the revisions to the Master Plan; and (4) revisions presented in the Final IS/MND represent new information added to clarify, amplify, or to make insignificant modifications to the Draft IS/MND; and WHEREAS, the Draft IS/MND included adequate information for a meaningful public review and comment, and the Final IS/MND has not been changed in such a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Village and Barrio Master Plan or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid a substantial environmental effect; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 18, 2018, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND" (which includes the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Response to Comments), attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP PC RESO NO. 7293 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. C. d. Condition: 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 -Village and Barrio Master Plan, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA and comments thereon1 there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 1. The City Planner shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01-Village and Barrio Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regu[ar meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on April 18, 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MARTELL MONTGOMERY, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU City, Planner PC RESO NO. 7293 -3- EXHIBIT "MND" City of Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2016021056 Project Number: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Prepared for: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 April 2018 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Introduction ........................................................................................................... follows Table of Contents Mitigated Negative Declaration ..................................................................................... follows Introduction Initial Study 1. Project Name ................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project No ........................................................................................................................................ 1 3. Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Project Applicant .............................................................................................................................. l 5. Lead Agency Contact Person ............................................................................................................ 1 6. Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 1 7. General Plan Land Use Designation ................................................................................................. 1 8. Zoning .............................................................................................................................................. 1 9. Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1 10. Environmental Setting/Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................. 17 11. Other Required Agency Approvals ................................................................................................. 18 12. Previous Environmental Documentation ....................................................................................... 18 13. Summary Of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 18 14. Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 18 15. Determination ................................................................................................................................ 19 16. Environmental Determination ....................................................................................................... 19 17. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................ 20 I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 22 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 23 Ill. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 25 IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 30 V. Cultural/Paleontological Resources .................................................................................. 32 VI. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 38 VII., Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 40 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 43 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 46 X. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... SO XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 55 XII. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 56 XIII. Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 59 XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................................... 61 XV. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 63 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ...................................................................................................... 63 XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Section Page XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 67 XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 71 XX. List of Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 72 XXI. Earlier Analyses ................................................................................................................. 74 XXII. Earlier Analysis Used and Supporting Information Sources ............................................. 74 List of Appendices A Draft 15/MND Figures (replaced by figures in Final IS/MND) B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C Responses to Comments List of Figures Follows Page 1 Regional Location Map .................................................................................................................. 76 2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 76 3 Existing and Proposed Land Use .................................................................................................... 76 4 Existing and Proposed Zoning ........................................................................................................ 76 5 Key Village Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 76 6 Key Barrio Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 76 7 Districts ................................ ! ...................................................................................................... .,. 76 List of Tables 1 Frequency of Air Quality Standard Violations, Number of Days Exceeding Standard ................... 27 2 Demonstration of General Plan Consistency ................................................................................. 51 fi INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by the City of Carlsbad (city) for the city's Village and Barrio Master Plan (Master Plan). The Notice of Intent to adopt a MND was published in the newspaper February 12, 2016, and invited public comment through March 13, 2016. The Draft IS/MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and circulated for a 30-day public review period beginning on February 16, 2016, and ending on March 16, 2016 (SCH No. 2016021056). During that time, the document was reviewed by various state and local agencies, as well as by interested individuals and organizations. The Final IS/MND is presented herein with changes incorporated after the completion of public review. Additions, revisions, and clarifications to the Draft IS/MND are provided in strike out/underline format to signify deletions and inserts in the Final IS/MND text. The Draft IS/MND was prepared based on the first draft of the Master Plan, which was circulated for public review in November 2015. In April 2016, the city released a second Master Plan draft. Subsequent public input and preparation of a comprehensive parking study for the Village, Barrio, and adjacent beach area contributed to the decision to further revise the Master Plan and prepare and release for public review a third draft, dated January 2018. Following its release, the city prepared errata to identify recommended revisions to the third draft. The errata are provided as part of the Planning Commission staff report on the Master Plan. Revisions to the Master Plan that have occurred subsequent to public circulation of the Draft IS/MND are summarized below. Revisions or Clarifications to the Village and Barrio Master Plan Subsequent to the circulation of the Draft IS/MND, a number of revisions or clarifications were made to the Draft Village and Barrio Master Plan. The Master Plan has been restructured to separate the discussion into six chapters instead of three parts. Where the first draft provided content over the Plan, Code, and Design Guidelines parts, the third draft separates plan content into the following chapters: • Chapter 1, Introduction, contains the overall vision, goals and policies, and key improvement recommendations. • Chapter 2, Land Use, contains the regulatory requirements1 such as the permitted uses and development and parking standards, and the design guidelines. • Chapter 3, Signs, contains standards for design and placement of signs. • Chapter 4, Mobility and Beautification, outlines and discusses overall and conceptual improvements to public areas, such as streets and sidewalks; a bicycle network plan; and parking and transportation demand management strategies. • Chapter 5, Implementation, provides an implementation and phasing plan for Master Plan public improvements as well as potential improvement funding sources. • Chapter 6, Administration, details Master Plan permit and review requirements and administrative procedures for amendments to the Master Plan. In general, revisions to the Master Plan have been guided by the vision established through ongoing community input, regulations, policies, studies, and other guidance. The city has continued to receive input from the community on the Master Plan since the first draft was circulated for public review in November 2015; the third draft Master Plan incorporates many ofthe community's recommendations for April 2018 -1-1-Introduction to the Final IS/MND City of Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan Project No; GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 both the vision and future development within the Village and Barrio. While some of the key improvement recommendations presented in Chapter 1 are consistent with those presented in the Village and Barrio Illustrative Plans of the first and second Master Plan drafts, the list of recommendations has been refined. Refinements have resulted primarily through continued public input on the types of improvements that would benefit the community, from a recently completed Parking Management Plan (as discussed in the following paragraph), and from continued work by the city to produce the third draft. The parking standards and approaches to manage parking and increase mobility, presented in Chapters 2 and 4, incorporate the key recommendations and strategies from the Parking Manageme.nt Plan (PMP) for the Village, Barrio and Beach Area, which was accepted by the City Council in September 2017, The information presented in Chapter 4 replaces the Mobility Plan, as well as many other components of the "Plan" portion of the first and second drafts proposed to enhance the Village and Barrio. References to creation of a Mobility Management District and Downtown Mobility Commission previously identified in the earlier Master Plan drafts have been removed. The Master Plan recommends that the city implement a comprehensive parking management program to strengthen and improve shared parking in the area and implement other parking management and Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies to create a more balanced and efficient parking system. The goals, policies, standards and programs identified in the third draft Master Plan support creating a more walkable community and use of other modes of transportation such as walking, bicycling, and transit . The Master Plan boundary has been adjusted to exclude several parcels, including Jefferson Elementary School in the Barrio at the southern end of the Master Plan area. As the city lacks land use jurisdiction over the school, and much of the neighboring residential area developed separately and differently from the Barrio and with Tamarack Avenue orientation, this area is not within the plan's boundaries. Tamarack Shores, for example, the 80-unit planned community along the north and west sides of the school, was built in the 1970s and 80s, considerably later than and in a format unlike much of the Barrio. The 11transect districts" presented in the first and second drafts of the Master Plan have been refined into more descriptive and logical districts in Chapter 2 of the third draft Master Plan. The standards and permitted uses for each of these districts have been updated accordingly. The design guidelines also have been refined, but would still address many components of building style and orientation (including site layout, parking and access, plazas and open space, building massing and form, roof forms, building fa~ades, and appurtenances), as well as site planning considerations such as layout, parking, access, connectivity, landscaping, and utilities. The permit types presented in Chapter 6 have been revised from the "minor review permit" and "major review permit'' terminology previously presented to "minor site development plan," "site development plan," and 11h)inor conditional use permit/' and "conditional use permit," to be consistent with existing permitting requirements elsewhere in the city. The third draft also contains an Implementation Plan in Chapter 5. The Implementation Plan identifies key Master Plan project and program recommendations, general implementation time frames and potential funding sources. An implementation plan was not presented in the earlier drafts. The Final IS/MND has incorporated the revisions summarized above. The analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND was reviewed against these changes, and revisions and clarifications have been made as necessary to address the revised Master Plan, as described below. The figures presented in the Draft IS/MND that have been updated and replaced in the Final IS/MND to reference maps and figures provided in the third draft Master Plan are presented in Appendix A. April 2018 +2-Introduction to the Final IS/MND City of Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Recirculation Requirements and Revisions or Clarifications to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073.5(a) and (b) state that recirculation is required when a Negative · Declaration or an MND has been substantially revised, which is defined as: {1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or; {2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Section 15073.5{c) also adds that recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: {1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1. (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. {3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. {4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. No new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require recirculation of the Draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. Specifically, no new significant environmental impacts would result from the modifications to the Master Plan or new information in the Final IS/MND. No substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts would occur. Impacts identified as less than significant in the Draft IS/MND would remain the same or be slightly reduced as a result of the revisions to the Master Plan. Potentially significant and mitigable impacts to biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, and noise would remain the same as analyzed in the Draft IS/MND. Mitigation measures ARCH-1 and PALEO-1 have been revised to reference the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines, which were adopted by the city in September 2017 after public circulation of the Draft IS/MND. With incorporation of the new guidelines and standard treatment measures, these mitigation measures are not considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft IS/MND, and these mitigation measures would reduce the potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Other revisions to the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts presented in the Final IS/MND are generally summarized as follows: • Updates to the IS Checklist format and discussion to be consistent with current city guidelines, including expanding the checklist for agricultural and forestry resources and providing a separate discussion of tribal cultural resources per the 2018 CEQA Guidelines; • Updates to the regulatory framework to discuss the current applicable plans, policies, guidelines, and regulations that have been published or adopted subsequent to public circulation of the Draft IS/MND; • Minor revisions to address changes to the Master Plan boundary, vision and objectives, goals and policies, development standards, design guidelines, and implementation plan, as summarized above; April 2018 -1-3-Introduction to the Final 15/MND City of Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 • Updated data and additional information to clarify and support the significance conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND; and • Revisions in response to comments received during public circulation. The Draft IS/MND included adequate information for a meaningful public review and comment; the Final IS/MND has not been changed in such a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Village and Barrio Master Plan or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid a substantial environmental effect. Based on the above considerations, recirculation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan is not warranted. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been included as Appendix B to this Final IS/MND; Which has been prepared in response to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA Guidelines require that an MMRP be adopted upon certification of an IS/MND to ensure mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND are implemented. The mitigation measures presented in the MMRP incorporate the additions, revisions, and clarifications of the Final IS/MND text. Implementation of the MMRP for the Village and Barrio Master Plan is the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. Response to Comments Three letters were received from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research indicating that the SCH had submitted the Draft IS/MND to selected state agencies for review; comments from the responding agencies were enclosed. These letters are included in Appendix C. Written comments were received during the public review period from the following agencies, provided in chronological order of comments received: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In addition, written comments were received from two individuals: John Bailey and Robert C. Ladwig. The comments and city responses to the comments are included as Appendix C to the Final IS/MND. April 2018 +4-Introduction to the Final IS/MND PROJECT NAME: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN ( City of Carlsbad PROJECT NO: GPA 16-01/ZC 16-01/ZCA 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV 08014) PROJECT LOCATION: The Village and Barrio Master Plan establishes a vision, policies and standards for future development and land uses with the city's downtown "Village" and adjacent "Barrio." The two neighborhoods occupy approximately 350-acres. The Village and Barrio Master Plan would replace the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual and the general zoning regulations applicable to the Barrio. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Village and Barrio are generally west of Interstate 5 between Tamarack Avenue and Laguna Drive. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [2:1 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. D The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact{s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. {Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects {a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and {b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is requ ired. A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTEST: DAVID DE CORDOVA Principal Planner Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Initial Study ( Cicyof Carlsbad 1. PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Master Plan 2. PROJECT NO: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16~01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 3. LEAD AGENCY: 4. PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, (760) 602-4618, scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov. 6. PROJECT LOCATION: Carlsbad Village (Village) and the adjacent Barrio neighborhood are located at the northwestern edge of the City of Carlsbad (City), California {See Figure 1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2, Project Location). The Village is located within the City's historic center and downtown, and generally extends between Interstate 5 (1-5) and Garfield Street and from Laguna Drive to Oak Avenue. The Barrio neighborhood is adjacent to, and south of, the Village, and generally is considered to be the area between Oak and Tamarack Avenues and the railroad tracks and 1-5. The proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan (Master Plan) covers an approximately 350-acre area of the City, a portion of which is located within the Coastal Zone. 7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: General Commercial (GC), Open Space (OS), Public (P), Residential (R-15 [8-15 dwelling units per acre; du/ac] and R-30 [23-30 du/ac]), Transportation Corridor (TC) and; Village (V), and Visitor CoA1R1ercial (Ve). 8. ZONING: Commercial General (C-2), Cornrnercial Tourist (CT), Open Space (OS), Public Utility (P-U), Residential {RD-M, RD M O; R-3), Transportation Corridor (T-C), and Village Review (V-R). 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Village and Barrio Master Plan (Master Plan) is the planning document proposed to provide the vision, goals and policies, regulations, guidelines, and procedures for land use and development within the Village and Barrio areas of the City. The document updates and replaces the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual, adopted by the City in December 1995, aflti-certified by the Coastal Commission in September 1996, and periodically amended since. The document also provides for the first time a master plan and area-specific standards for the Barrio; presently, the Barrio is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. The Master Plan establishes the vision and sets forth recommendations and allowed land uses for future development of the Village and Barrio areas of the City. The Master Plan also discusses specific potential projects that may be implemented in the future. However, these potential projects, many of which are identified as the "key recommendations" discussed below, are not addressed in this Initial Study because there is insufficient information to assess potential impacts. These projects would require subsequent discretionary approval including environmental review by the City at the time they are proposed. April 2018 -1-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 The Master Plan contains the implementation strategy, standards, and criteria for development wtthin the Village and Barrio, per the vision the document identifies. The Master Plan is divided into fot:Jr parts six chapters and four appendices, as summarized below: _• _-Paft----Chapter 1 (Introduction) contains the overall v1s1on, strategies goals and policiesobjecti'.•es, and generally presents improi.•ement information conceptuall~·key improvement recommendations. _• _-P-iH=t-Chapter 2 (Land Use) contains the regulatory requirements, such as the permitted uses and development standards, and the design guidelines. _• _Paf.t-Chapter 3 (Signs) contains standards for design and placement of signsthe Design Guidelines. • Chapter 4 (Mobility and Beautification) outlines and discusses overall and conceptual improvements to public areas, such as streets and sidewalks; a bicycle network plan; and parking and transportation demand management strategies. • Chapter 5 (lmplementatioh) provides an implementation and phasing plan for Master Plan public improvements as well as potential improvement funding sources. • Chapter 6 (Administration) details Master Plan permit and review requirements and administrative procedures for amendments to the Master Plan. • The appendices provide supporting information, such as definitions, economic and demographic data, additional information regardihg funding sources, and a chronology of development of the Master Plan from 2011 to 2017Finally, Part q is the appendb<, which incl1:1des a section further detailing street concepts: 13resented in Part 1. As stated jn Part 1, the Master Plan: • Proi.rides guidance to property 011rners, merchants, and others interested in dm,ielopment or property lmpro¥ements within the Village and Barrio; • Pro'f1ides gl:lielance in interpreting planning and zoning requirements for properties within the Village and Barrio; • Proi.rides gl:lidance on potential ca13ital irnproi.rement projects to help incenth,1i2ce and im13lement de¥elo13ment within the Village anel Barrio; • Pro•tides principles, stanelards, reg1:1lations, and design guidelines that may be applied to proposed improi.•ements within the Village anel Barrio; and • Pro>o1ides a strategy for continuing to implement •tarious flFOgrams/13rojects to assist in revitalizing the Village and Barrio areas. Project Objectives Objectives of the project include the following: • Develop a master plan that unifies the Village and Barrio, conforms with the General Ptan, and implements the community1s vision through appropriate standards and guidelines; April 2018 -2-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 • Foster Village revitalization through a mix of uses that are traditionally located within a pedestrian-oriented downtown, attract residents and visitors, and create a lively social environment; • Strengthen the Village's commercial district, especially its core area, through standards that are (1) adequate to enable a variety of retail tenants, businesses, services, and (where appropriate) customer-serving office uses, and (2) mindful of the potential size and configuration constraints of the Village's existing commercial spaces; • Encourage homes in the Village, parti~ularly in a mixed-use format, where appropriate; • Address long-term public parking and public access needs based on a multi-modal transportation system objective and the accepted 2017 Parking Management Plan for the Village, Barrio and Beach Area, recognizing the Village's attractiveness to residents and visitors, as well as its proximity to beaches; • Develop appropriate parking ratios based on ava.ilable public parking, the accepted 2017 Parking Management Plan for the Village, Barrio and Beach Area and in recognition of the San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) designation of the Village and Barrio areas as an "existing/planned smart growth area"; • Encourage Barrio/Village cohesion and access through community gathering spaces and livable streets that serve all users with improved sidewalks, lighting, and street trees; and • Ensure Barrio development enhances neighborhood quality and character. In both the Village and Barrio areas, the Master Plan strives to: • lncentivize and attract smart growth development; • Foster better transit; • Emphasize the pedestrian through design, uses, and the streetscape; • Maintain and enhance the area through quality design, uses, public spaces, and livable streets; • De·.,elop the Village and Barrio as concentrated, urban scaled nodes; • Support future housing needs for all income groups; • Support and enhance non-vehicular access within the planning area and to adjacent areas, across the railroad, and to the beach; _•_Recognize and preserve historic and cultural resources; and • Manage parking. • Encourage quality design. Master Plan The Master Plan is intended to enhance future development of the Village and Barrio are.as, particularly relative to the street experience, public spaces, and through appropriate development standards and guidelines. The Master Plan has several focuses, including reestablishing the traditional development pattern of the Village as a true village with a downtown commercial core and a central Barrio (residential) core, maintaining and enhancing the Village as a community focal point and the Barrio as predominantly residential area; promoting devefopment that protects and enhances the character of both neighborhoods yet provides enough flexibility and opportunity for quality growth; e>Eisting character of Carlsbad while promoting design focused regulations for new development, creating "livable streets" that balance different modes of transportation_;_, creating magnetic public April 2018 -3-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 spaces~ and maximizing connectivity within the planning area, with adjacent neighborhoods, and with the beach. The Master Plan has been developed in consultation with the Carlsbad community through an iterative process that began in 2013. The city received significant public input Key reconuTiendations for the vision and future de•,elopment •.vithin the Village and Barrio were cultivated during an approximately two-week public charrette in September 2014, in response to the two previously- released drafts, and at a community meeting in July 2016. This charrette, led by Master Plan consultant Dover, Kohl & Partners, included hands on design sessions and meetings with residents, community members, agency representatii.'€s, :and City staff. The Master Plan incorporates many of thecSe community's recommendations for both the vision and future development within the Village and Barrio in tl:le vision or "Plan" portion of the document; in some cases, recommendations have been modified upon further study. Generally, the recommendations presented in the Master Plan for improvements to Village and Barrio streets and properties are in a conceptual form only and are intended to be refined over time as futute project-specific development is planned by the private and public sector. Implementation of the recommendations also would be subject to further and separate review, analysis, and approval. Furthermore, while the Master Plan is guided by the vision established through community input. regulations, policies, studies, and other guidance have also influenced the preparation of t his plan. These other influences include, but are not limited to. the Carlsbad Community Vision, General Plan, Local Coastal Program. Climate Action Plan, Municipal Code. and Zoning Ordinance; a complete listing is contained in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan. In addition to conceptual improvements, the Master Plan also presents strategies aAd objectii..·es to g1:1ide land use. Some of the strategies, for example, are contained within a "Mobility Plan," disc1:1ssed ft1rther below. The underlying General Plan designations and zoning currently in place within the Master Plan area would change. This is mostly due to the need to recognize the Master Plan for the Barrio. This will require a new designation and zoning to be applied to the Barrio. The present Village (V) designation and Village-Review (V-R) zoning now applied to the Village would be revised to include and recognize the Barrio. Figure 3, Ex;sting and Proposed Land Use, and Figure 4, ExisVng and Proposed Zoning, illustrate existing General Plan designations and zoning and how they would change under the Master Plan. However, General Plan densities currently permitted in the Village and Barrio would not change, and overall land use patterns in general would remain the same. Further, development would be guided by the Master Plan to be consistent with the recommended goals for implementation of the General Plan. Besides amendments to General Plan land use designation and zon ing maps, portions of the General Plan, such as the Land Use and Community Design Element, and the Zoning Ordinance will need corresponding text amendments to recognize the proposed land use designations and zoning and the Master Plan . The existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual would be completely replaced and superseded by the Master Plan. The Master Plan would establish new transect districts that would replace the existing,land use districts of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. These transectnew districts would also regulate land uses, aoo-provide standards in the Barrio,. as well and replace existing zoning currently in place in the Barrio. April 2018 -4-· Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Adoption of the City's General Plan in September 2015 changed zoning and General Plan designations on four properties near or partially within the boundaries of the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual. These properties, located east and west of Carlsbad Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 203-250-08, 203-250-25, 203-250-26, and 203-231-01), now have the present V designation and V-R zone, althol:¾gh the zoRe chaRge is still subject to Coastal Commission approval. The boundary of the Village and Barrio Master Plan was not formally revised to incorporate these properties. This boundary adjustment would occur as part of the Village and Barrio Master Plan approval. This adjustment is already shown on the proposed master plan boundary indicated on Figures 3 and 4. Portions of the Village and Barrio currently are part of two different Local Coastal Program segments -the Village Area Rei.•iev, segment and the Mello II segment. The local Coastal Program will be revised as appropriate to recognize the Master Plan. The following discussion summari2es specific sections of the Master Plan, as revised in January 2018, that address the project objectives listed above. Master Plan Vision. Goals and Policies As identified in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan. the vision for the Village and Barrio is as follows: Carlsbad's Village and Barrio are vibrant. safe. and healthy neighborhoods that: • Serve as the historic heart of the city, honoring Carlsbad's past and creating a strong sense of community. • Are connected in place and spirit yet retain their unique personalities. • Embody the principles of smart growth. with a mix of commercial and residential land uses. a variety of housing choices, walkable neighborhoods, and multiple transportation options. • Attract high quality. sustainable development that enhances vitality and local characte'r~ To reinforce the vision, goals and policies have been established to guide public ahd private development within the Village and Barrio. Each goal and policy links to one or more aspects of the Master Plan vision. In turn, the plan's provisions, whether a development standard. permitted use or recommended improvement, align with and support the goals and policies. The goals and policies are identified in Chapter 1 of the Master Plan and fall into the following four categories: • Land use and community character; • Mobility and parking; • Connectivity; and • Placemaking. April 2018 -5-Initial Study The Village Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 The proposed Master Plan would support Village revitalization over the long-term through a series of key recbmmendations that are both broad and specific. The key recommendations are based on input from extensive public participation and city staff work that have occurred throughout the development of the Master Plan. Due to ongoing public outreach and refinemeht of the plan. the recommendations have evolVed from the "Village Illustrative Plan" presented in the November 2015 Draft of the Master Plan. provided in the Village lllustrati¥e Plan. The Village lllustratii.•e Plan ~ Figure 5, 'IJ.ltef}e Jtlustreti~·e PJenKey VHlaqe Recommendations,} highlights the key recommendations for the Village, which are also depicts key rede•,•elopment and infill opportunities ·Nithin the Village, which correspond to the follo•Ning recommendations:listed below: A. Consider pedestrian scrambles at key Carlsbad Village Drive intersections, such as at Roosevelt Street and Carlsbad Village Drive. B.. Develop public plazas at key intersections, such as Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. C. Reconfigure the Village Train Station's State Street entrance into a formal plaza with vehicle access maintained. D. Incorporate cycle tracks on Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, and State Street Alley. E. Re-route the Coastal Rail Trail from State Street north of Oak Avenue to the alley west of State Street; connect the trail with any railroad crossings; add new bike and pedestrian crossings at Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue. F. Tunnel under the freeway to connect Grand Avenue with streets to the east of the Interstate, near City Hall. G. lower the railroad tracks below street level to enable more crossings over the tracks and better connect the Village to the beach. H. Make Grand Avenue a signature space by converting half the street into a pedestrian promenade. I. Provide a new east-west pedestrian connection between Madison Street and Roosevelt Street in the vicinity of Beech Avenue and Arbuckle Place. J. Improve Carlsbad Village Drive west of Carlsbad Boulevard to provide a more attractive, enticing entrance to the beach. K. Create a new civic space at the corner of Grand Avenue and State Street; energize the space through conversion of the adjacent building into an attractive and active use. L Reconfigure a portion of Lincoln Street between Oak Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard to create additional civic space in the Village in the form of a shared space or pedestrian plaza. M. In coordination with the potential lowering of the tracks below street level, develop a central green space through expansion of Rotary Park over the tracks. April 2018 -6-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16·01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 a. Set the tone for a walkable •.•illage with street oriented, peaestrian friendly buildings upon entering the Village at I 5. a. Create a mi>wd use square or public plaza at the entrance to the Village. b. Pro>.1ide parking at Vlllage entry points that connect with local circulators (e.g., 13edestrian streets and patf:ls, buses or bicycle infrastructure), to encourage 13eople to 13ark tf:leir cars and ~ c. Increase the parking supply within the Village on city owned properties and on streets. d. Make Grand A11enue a signature space by con•,1erting f:lalf the street into a l')edestrian promenade and creat ing a sf:lared space or "festi>.•al street'' betv,men the railroad tracks and Roose¥elt Street. e. Create a public plaza at the corner of Grand and State Street; formalize tf:le space by providing a new building as a backdrop to the civic plaza. f. Create a formal entrance to the Coaster Station. g. Pro,.•ide parking structures for commuters and visitors to the Village. This frees land for additional housing and commercial opportunities. h. Tunnel under the freeway to connect Grand Avenue 'Nith streets to tf:le east of the Interstate, near City Mall. i. Increase f:lm1sing and business opportunities and provide a more connected street frontage througf:101:1t tf:le Village. j. lmpro..•e beacf:I users' ei1perience through better access and close by amenities. I<. ~ncourage rede,.•elopment of the Village Faire into a street oriented center. I. Close a 13ortion of Lincoln Street between Oak A¥em1e and Carlsbad Boulevard to create aElditional ci¥ic space in tf:le Village. m. Trench tl'-le railroad in coordination with double tracking the line. Tf:lis 1it,ii11 allow for more crossings across the tracks ana better connect the Village to the beach. n. Utilize alleys between Carlsead Village Drive ana Oak Street to create an artist village. The Barrio Similar to the Village, key recommendations Opport1:1nities that also have been identified ~or fl:lt1:1re ae11elopment with into reiuvenate the Barrio.:...are aescribed in the Ba rrio Illustrative Plan (See Figure 6, !Sgy_Barrio Recommendations, highlights many of these, !IJ1:1strative Plan). The following l<ey recommendations correspona to the items iaentiffed in Figure Gwhich are also listed below:.:. A. Create a shared space at Roosevelt Street and Walnut Avenue, a prominent intersection in the Barrio, B. Explore reconfiguring Tyler Street south of Oak Avenue into a ''shared space" and from a two-way to a one-way street. C. Explore use of the railroad right of way for public parking while maintaining the Coastal Rail Trail. D. Add traffic circles and other intersection improvements to calm traffic and improve walkability. E. Improve the Coasta l Rail Trail entries at Tamarack Avenue and Oak Avenue. April 2018 -7-lnitiaJ Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 F. Develop protected bikeways (cycle tracks) that connect the Barrio with the Village and the beach. G. Provide, at a minimum, a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Chestnut Avenue; if lowering the tracks below street level does not proceed, pursue the completion of this particular crossing. H. Lower the railroad tracks below street level to enable more crossings over the tracks and better connect the Barrio to the beach; connect the Coastal Rail Trail with any railroad crossings. a. Support trenching the railroad tracks i-A coordination with double tracking the s•,rstem to create a full.y connected network of streets across the tracks and preserve the Coastal Rail Trail connection. b. Create a protected cvcle track on 1=4aFding Street. c. Provide angled parking in the center of the street to pro\«ide additional supply while calming the street within the existing c1:.1rb dimensions. d. Create "streets for C\i'eryone" by rel:>alancing tl=lem throughout the Barrio to have narro'Nef tra¥el lanes and add street trees betv,«een parking spaces. e. Add t raffic circles to cairn traffic and improve walkaaility. f. Consistent witl=l tl=le Gel'leral Plan, allo'.'.« denser buildings along the Interstate, railroad, and Tamarack /\'.«enue (along tl=le perimeter) to meet residential c!emand while also protecting the smaller lot nature of the Barrio. The requirements outlined in the Edge District are based on this objective. Barrio redevelopment sho1::1la pro\«iae a mix of units an a housing types to meet density needs rather tt:ian single repeateel i:l1:1ilelings. Barrio reae•.«eloprnent should pro¥ide a FAil< of units anel housing ti,<pes to meet density needs rather than single repeated buildings. Construct a roundabout at tt:ie intersection of Tamarack At,,ienue and Jefferson Street to allow vehicles to flo•1,• in and out of the neighl:>orhooel at managed speeds ,.,.«hile ereating a gateway into the Barrio and beact:i area. g. Enable street oriented l:>uilding along Tamarack bl{ I S to creating a gate•1,;«ay for the Barrio ana Beach. h. Ensure infill de·.«elopment within the Barrio is in keeping with tl=le current character of the BaffiG. i. Connect Magnolia Avenue to Anchor Wa~' with a sidewalk ana proviae safe passage to children l:leading to school. j. Consider senior housing Rear Pine /\venue Park, the Warding Coma:iunit'( Center, and the Senior Center. Senior housing often occurs near a comm,,mity facility so that residents can access daily needs '.Vithin a short v,«alking distance. k. Complete Pine A,.•enue Park and Cofflmunity Center, a center of activit'( in the Barrio, in accordance witl=l the Park Master Plan. Mobility. Circulation, and Parking and Beautification In accordance with the General Plan and the recommendations outlined in the Master Plan, the future of the Village and Barrio is envisioned to be a walkable Yf9af¼-environment. However, other modes of transportation would be accommodated to benefit the bicyclist, motorist, rideshare user and transit user as well. As envisioned by the Master Plan in Chapter 4, the existing circulation system would be enhanced through a variety of street, parking, and pedestrian/bicycle and other potential mobility improvements based not only on current but emerging and future technologies as well. All mobility recommendations are developed around guiding principles of establishing connections and April 2018 -8-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 infrastructure for all modes of travel; embracing a variety of transportation options; and creating a "park once" strategy in the Village that enables and encourages visitors to park once and move around the Village on foot, by bike, or other alternative mode of transportation. In Chapter 4, +,!he Master Plan recommends that existing streets be retrofitted with wider sidewalks, bike infrastructure, trees, better lighting, and buried/relocated overhead utilities to improve walkability and appearance. Street improvements would feature a balance of different modes of transportation, and include Infrastructure to support all roadway users, such as the addition of on-street parking through restriping and curb cut closures, protected bike lanes (cycle tracks}, or a pedestrian promenade along Grand Avenue. The promenade would provide sufficient width to accommodate pedestrians, as well as outdoor dining and feta#-public activitiesopportunities, in lieu of one-half of the current street. Although not proposed as part of the Master Plan, the Master Plan acknowledges and integrates two major transportation-related projects which may affect the Village and Barrio areas, and which would improve connectivity with the planning area and its surroundings, a Master Plan ob1ectivegoal. The first is the proposal by the North County Transit District (NCTD) and SAN DAG to double-track the rail line through the area. In addition to the plans to double-track the rail lines, the City and SAN DAG are currently studying the feasibility of putting the rail lines in a below-street-level trench to reduce noise and safety impacts, and impacts and allow more linkage between areas currently separated by the rail lines. Transportation enhancements in local communities, which accompany the plans to widen 1-5 in the northern part of the county, offer another opportunity to enhance mobility in the Master Plan area. These enhancements would be funded by the California Department ofTransportation ('Caltrans), and could include "gateway" treatments, widened sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and street trees. As freeway design proceeds, the City would continue to work with Caltrans to improve east-west connections across Vi for all modes of transportation (including pedestrians and cyclists), including Carlsbad Village Drive, Chestnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue. In addition to the mobility and circulation system improvements noted above, the Master Plan proposes a "Mobility Plan."Mobility and Beautification chapter concludes with a section entitled "Implement Parking and Transportation Demand Strategies." This section is based on the 2017 Parking Management Plan for the Village, Barrio, and Beach Area (PMP}, accepted by City Council in September 2017. The PMP began with a comprehensive study capturing the existing parking conditions in the Master Plan and adjacent beach areas, including parking occupancy and duration data. Key recommendations and strategies from the PMP are incorporated into this Master Plan for implementation. The PMP provides implementable short-term (by year 2020), medium-term (by year 2025). and long-term (by year 2035} strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the parking system and increase mobility within the Village and Barrio. The PMP was developed with the following goals in mind: • Make parking more convenient for community members. employees, and visitors; • Promote more efficient use of existing parking; • Support future parking needs and mobility options; • Explore options to make the project area more inviting for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit riders; and • Support the vision outlined in the Master Plan. April 2018 -9-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Consistent with the PMP, the Master Plan recommends that the city implement a comprehensive parking management program to strengthen and improve shared parking in the area and implement other parking management and Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies to create a more balanced and efficient parking system. TOM consists of programs, policies and actions that aim to reduce reliance on solo-occupant vehicle use. in part by providing more options for getting around. The goals, policies, standards, and programs identified in the Master Plan support the vision to more fully transform the Village and Barrio into a vibrant, walkable community, supported by a mix of uses and transit options. An important outcome will be to shift people from vehicle-focused travel, and more use of other modes: walking, bicycling and transit. Because transportation is constantly evolving, the purpose ohhis Mobility Plan is not to recommend specific transportation or 13arking 13rojects to implement. Instead, lt is intended to pro1tide an overall framework and strategies for efficiently managing mobility in all its forms, and to im13lernertt cl=langes te the regulation of 13ri•.iate dmmlo13ment that are a13propriate for the Village and Barrio's walkable, urban setting. Tl=le Mobility Plan identifies short and long term strategies to guide and manage parking and mobility in general; strategies include: • Creation of a Mobility Management District and Do•nntown Mobility Comn:iission. District boundaries 'A'OUld mirror tl=lose of the Master Plan. Pur13oses of the Mobility Commission could incl1:1de O't'erseeing, observing, and making recofl'lmendation on parking and mobility issues and strategies within tl=le district. Creation of the district and commission would require separate City action; • ldentifi,1 013port1:1nities to FAa*irniz.e efficiency of e>Eisting parking and impro¥e mobility to and around the Village and Barrio, such as with 1.ialet service, car or bike share and smart 13arking technologies; • Reduce 13arl<:ing standards for 13rivate de'.1elo13R'lent (Note: This strateg1; is addressed in the Master Plan dm,celo13R'lent standards); • ltn13rove "beacl:i area" streets (tl:10se ,..,.est of Carlsbad Boulevard) to beRefit all beach users; • Identify 01313ortuAities to 13artner with North Co1:1nty Transit District, •.vhether for the p1:1blic use of its current parking lots, or for f1:1t1:1Fe joint development 13rojects and additional access across the railroad right of waY,, and; • Ex13and the In lie1:1 Parl~ing Fee PrograR'l's scope and area to (1) fund im13ro,.1ernents that enhance other public mobility options, s1:1ch as shuttle services and widened sidewallg;, and (2) encorn13ass the Village area west of the railroad tracks. Dettelepment StandardsLJnd Use The Development Standarelsland Use section (Chapter 2) of the document &can be divided into the following main parts: Universal StandardsMaster Plan Districts (District-Based Approach)) allowable lland uUses, Transect Districts Standards, Permitted Residential Density and Excess Dwelling Unit Bank information, Area-wide and Supplemental District standards. and Design Guideline!:PerFAitted Uses and Use Stanelards, Parking Program and Requirements, and Sign Standards. They are preceded by a section that explains tl=le reg1:1latory framework and outlines the 13ermitting and ap13roval process. • Master Plan Districts. The Master Plan presents a district-based zoning approach to guide the form and location of ·development within the Master Plan area. In a district-based zoning approach, each district has a unique vision and the desired activities and building forms dictate April 2018 -10-Initial Study April 2018 Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 what is allowed and what is not allowed. To do this, the Master Plan divides the Village and Barrio into eight different districts, each described briefly below and depicted in Figure 7, Districts: o The Village Center District (VC) encompasses the core of the Village and includes a mix of commercial. atta.ched residential, and mixed-use building types, This district intends buildings to be generally attached and built on or near the front property fine, creating, throughout most of the district, a continuous commercial street frontage (often with residences or offices above) to provide destinations and workplaces in a walkable environment that is centered around the main destinations of the Carlsbad Village Station, State Street, Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive. Within the Coastal Zone, ground floor commercial uses will primarily cater to visitors. The Village Center District generally continues well-established land use patterns but emphasizes preserving a commercial core. A portion of the Village Center District encompasses the railroad corridor, which includes the Carlsbad Village Station, large parking lots, the historic Santa Fe Train Depot, and Rotary Park. o The Village General District (VG) provides an opportunity to expand the mix of commercial and residential uses into a broader geographic area .in the northern part of the Village, roughly from Roosevelt Street east to Jefferson Street. Buildings may be attached or detached, and located near the front property line, or allow for an area for either small courtyards, outdoor dining or open space, and/or additional landscaping. Residential and commercial uses may exist side-by-side or in a mixed-use format. In addition, development standards serve to transition the area to adjacent residential neighborhoods. o The Hospitality District {HOSP) provides a transition between the beach and the heart of the Village. The area currently contains mixed-use buildings. dense residential buildings, and a number of large and expansive uses, including a private school. church. lodging, and a retirement community. The area is contained entirely within the Coastal Zone and provides an opportunity for visitor-serving and hospitality uses serving visitors and residents alike, with ground floor commercial uses primarily catering to visitors. While buildings are intended to be mostly attached and built on or near the front property line to create a continuous street frontage and a seamless walkable environment, along part of Carlsbad Boulevard, much of the district has a greater building setback requirement to help maintain a more open feel as well as access and views toward the coastline. Portions of the district, such as the Army and Navy Academy, may retain a more campus- like setting. o The Freeway Commercial District (FC) consists of traveler services normally associated with urban freeway interchanges. Uses include lodging, restaurants, retail, and gas stations. Residential units are also included in this district. Existing development within this district has taken on a more suburban layout with larger surface parking lots and open space. Going forward, redevelopment within this area should be designed to provide a welcoming presence along Carlsbad Village Drive as it is a gateway to the Master Plan area. e--The Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use District (PT) is a distinct area of transition between the more compact Village Center District and established multi-and single-family neighborhoods in -11-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 the Barrio. The district contains residential, commercial. and office uses. On the west side ofTyler Street, these uses mix with light industrial uses. The industrial nature and eclectic mix of existing buildings provides a unique opportunity for redevelopment with uses such as incubator and/or start-up businesses, live/work units for artists and others, breweries, and dance studios. ~The Barrio Perimeter District (BP) is residential in nature and includes the properties within the Barrio that are located adjacent to 1-5, Jefferson Elementary School, and the railroad corridor. The Barrio Perimeter District contains a mix of residential uses, including relatively dense, attached housing. Buildings should be carefully positioned along the Interstate in order to reduce noise and air quality impacts for inhabitants. e--The Barrio Center District (BC) is residential in nature and is intended to protect and enhance the historic Barrio residential neighborhood, which contains a number of smaller homes and duplexes and some multi-family structures. While a range of residential types is allowed, the permitted density is less than that of the surrounding Barrio Perimeter District. Buildings may be attached or detached and may be set behind a small courtyard and/or contain a porch or stoop; lots typically have a private rear yard. o The Village-Barrio Other District {VBO) includes several properties within t he Master Plan Boundary that are subject to the permitted uses and standards of Title 21 {Zoning Ordinance) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) and not the Village and Barrio Master Plan. They are designated "Village-Barrio Other." These properties include the railroad corridor south of Oak Avenue, Magee, Maxton Brown, and Pine Avenue Parks, and the AT&T switching facility on Harding Street. These properties are subject to the Zoning Ordinance for various reasons, including public or quasi-public ownership, land use and adequacy of zoning standards. Their location, relationship, and/or importance to the Village and Barrio neighborhoods, however, necessitates these properties be subject to the Area-wide Design Guidelines and visionary components of the Master Plan, including the streetscape improvement standards identified in Chapter 4, Mobility and Beautification. • Land Uses. This section establishes the mix of land uses that reflect the intended vision of each district. This section identifies permitted, conditionally permitted. accessory, right-of- way, and prohibited uses. Many of these uses also are defined in Appendix A of the Master Plan, as well as Chapter 21.04 of the CMC. • Density, which refers to the number of dwelling units permitted per developable aore of property, would apply to all Master Plan districts. Proposed densities are expressed as a range {e.g., 28-35 units per acre) and are consistent with the General Plan and CMC Section 21.53.230. • Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. This section clarifies that projects proposing dwelling units in some districts require an allocation of excess dwelling units from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. For proiects proposing dwelling units in the Village Center (VC), Village General (VG), Hospitality {HOSP), Freeway Commercial (FC), and Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use {P-T) districts. as well as projects in the Barrio Perimeter {BP) and Barrio Center (BC) districts that propose densitfes above the City's Growth Management Control Point. an allocation is necessary as these April 2018 -12-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 districts do not have residential densities assigned for Growth Management Program compliance purposes. _•_Universal Area-wide Standards would be applicable to all-projects in many or all o~ the Village and Barrio, regardless of Transect !:l_9istrict location. These standards provide requirements related to growth management and residential density information, site planning, building placement and orientation, building elements, outdoor and right~of-way uses, and parking. This section also identifies provisions for standards modifications, and general development information. Transect Supplemental Districts Standards would be applicable to each of the 5e-lleR'--eight proposedTransect g_Gistricts identified ,,.,1ithin the Master Plan area. These standards would be applied according to the location of the proposed development and/or activity. The standards would address building coverage, height, and setback, and other requirements applicable to development. • Tl=le sei.1en Transect Dg_istricts are described brief!~, below and depicted in Figures 7a and 7b, Ti=onsect Districts: • Area-Wide Design Guide/Ines. The Design Guidelines, described in further detail below, are intended to implement and enhance the existing character within the Village and Barrio as new development and property improvements occur. April 2018 o Neigl=lborhood District (~lD): The Neighborhood District would be primaril~· residential in l'lature, and is intended to protect and enhance the historic and small scale of the Barrio Neighborhood. Buildings may be attached or detached, and are set behind a small front yard, wl=lich may contain a porcl=I or stoop; lots typicallv l=la¥e a pri•,,1ate rear yard. o Edge District (EO): The E'.eige District includes the properties 'A'ithin the Barrio that are located adjacent to I 5, part of Tamarack Avemie, and the ra ilroad corridor. The Edge District would contain a milt of building types and uses, including attacl=led housing. Buildings should 13e carefully positioned along I 5 in order to reduce noise pollution fer in l=la bita nts. o Tyler Roosevelt District (TD): The T11ler Roosevelt District is intended to be a distinct area of transition between the more compact Center and General Districts and the most111 residential Neighborhood District. The Tyler Roosevelt Street District would contain boutique commercial uses as well as a limited range of residential building types. o General District (GD): The General District would contain the greatest mix of residential and commercial uses 1Nith buildings typically limited to 35 inches in height in order to transition to ad1acent residential neighborhoods. Buildings may be attacl=led or detached, and built near ~he front property line with either small dooryards or the ability to widen sidewalks and/or provide additional landscaping. o Center District (Crn): The Center District would contain mbced use buildings, dense resieiential building t.,ipes, and would be typically located near or adjacent to the Village Core. Buildings would 13e mostly attached and built on or near tl::ie front property line to create a continuobl,5 street fayade and a seamless v.«allcable environment. o Core District (COD): The Core District would include a rnix of commercial, attached residential, and mixed 1:1se building types. Buildings would t·,cpically be attached, and built on or near the front property line, creating a continuous commercial street frontage to -13-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 provide destinations and workplaces in a walkable urban environment that would be centered on tl=le main destinations of the Carlsbad Village Station, State Street, Grand A>.cenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive. o Civic District (CD): Tl=le Gi>.<ic District would contain property tl=lat would ae deElicated to ci>Jic spaces, b1:1ildings and community 1:1ses. Due to tl=leir civic nat1:1re, greater design flex,ibility wo1:1ld be given to these sites, iAcluding adElitioAal height for vertical architectural features. The design and construction of civic buildings should ee of tl=le l=ligl=lest qualify, to reflect tl=le importance of these b1:1ildings within the communitit. The Perfflitted ResieentJa! DeR5it}' section identifies _density ranges. These ranges are consistent with the General Plan. +he .aerrnitted Uses and Use StandaFds sections wo1;1ld provide standards for the •,arious types of land uses that 1,•,•01:1ld be permitted, conditional, accessory, right of way, or not permitted \t.<ithin the Master Plan area, as described for each of the eight general lane use categories (i.e., residential, lodging, offices, retail, ci•,ic, civil support, ed1:1cation, other). The Parking P,cogror:n and Reeyuireffientsweuld provide parking improvement standarels and minimum parking req1:1irements by land 1:1se, as well as a list of options that redt1ce parking requirements or allow them to be satisfied in 1,1,,a'J'S other than strictl·t on site, such as througt:i the parking in lie1;:1 fee progran,. The Sign Standards section of the Master Plan would provide standards that appl•r to all t3roperties 'A'ithin the Village and Barrio. Design Guidelines The design guidelines (see Chapter 2) are intended to implement and enhance the m<isting character within the Village and Barrio as ne1N developn,ent anEl property improvemems occur. They generally would apply to all development except for those determined exempt in Section 6.3.2that which is exempt from a discretionary permit. The guidelines aim to improve the character of the Village and Barrio while improving livability. Guidelines address many components of building style and orientation, including site layout, parking and access, plazas and open space, building massing and form. roof forms. building facades, and appurtenances. As mcpressed in the guidelines or other 'parts of the Master Plan, basic design 13rinciples to be utilized in the design re1.,iew process ,for pro13erty in,provements and nev.' construction in the Village and the Barrio would inclt1de the following: • Arcl:litectural design and n,aterials should emphasize quality. • De1.·elopment shall be of an appropriate scale. • All development should ha•v<e a strong relationship to tl:ie street. • A strong emphasis should be placed on the design of ground floor facades. • Parking is enco1:1raged to '3e 1.cisually subordinated. • Lanelscaping and open areas should be important components of the architectural anEl site design. • Signage should be appropriate to the Village and Barrio character. The design guidelines do not dictate a particular architectural style or comprise every possible strategy for achieving high quality design but provide a minimum starting point for quality development. Guidelines pertaining to site planning. including layout, parking. access. connectivity. landscaping, and April 2018 -14-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 utilities. as well as building form and massing are provided to guide future development. Overall, the DesigR Gl:lidelines address many components of architectural detailing and building design, and provide guidance to meeting the basic design principles for the following categories: • Architectural styles • Site planning • Building massing • Roofs • Building facades • /\pp1::1rtenances In addition to the specific guidelines identified above, the document provides suggestions for short term and minor enhancements (e.g., landscaping, restripiAg parlEing lots, painting, aRd other minor site and building alterations). Signage The standards set forth in this section of the Master Plan apply to all new signs, replacement signs or modifications to existing signs within the Village and Barrio. unless otherwise exempt. The Master Plan standards take precedence over the requirements of Chapter 21.41 (Sign Ordinance) of the CMC, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Master Plan provides a list of permitted and prohibited signs. as well as standards for specific types of signs. Master Plan Implementation The Master Plan is intended to guide the future development within the Village and Barrio areas of the City, and help the City reach goals adopted in the General Plan. Assisting this effort are sections on Implementation (Chapter 5) and Administration (Chapter 6). The Implementation Chapter identifies the fiscal benefits of redevelopment. outlines potential funding sources for public improvements. and provides an Implementation Action Matrix. The matrix, applying mainly to public projects, groups the Master Plan's key project and program recommendations into specific categories (e.g.1 regulatory programs, plans and studies; capital improvements; parking management; transportation demand management; and railroad corridor). and proposes an initial phasing plan and general implementation time frames. Phasing of Master Plan public improvements helps identify what is most important to implement in the Village and Barrio and also aids the city in developing its capital improvement program. Administration of the Master Plan,. as presented in Chapter 61 would be conducted through a permit process, administered by the City Planner,. that establishes improvements and activities that~ are; f1-t exempt from a discretionary permit, or (2) require a discretionary permit, such as a ''minor ~site development plan" from the City Planner, ora "site development plan11 or 11conditional use permitmajor permit11 from the Planning Commission. Non-exempt projects, which includes most new construction, would be subject to the design guidelines. Exempt projects, such as some additions a Rew single fa mil•, home and exterior improvements that do not intensify the use of a structure, would not be subject to the design guidelines. In additionconiunction with Chapter 6, the Master Plan identifies in Chapter 2 both permitted and conditionally permitted uses. The City Planner would have the responsibility of reviewing individual project applications for completeness; determining permit Aprll 2018 -15-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 requirements and type of review {e.g., if ~Coastal Development Permit ~required); maintaining project records; approving/denying of minor permits and variances; referring and providing recommendations on certain permits to the City Planning Commission (and City Council, as appropriate and explained below); processing appeals of City Planner and Planning Commission determinations; and preparing associated documentation, such as public notices. Further, the City Council would be the final decision-making authority only for matters appealed to it or for legislative actions such as an amendment to the Master Plan, based upon a recommendation from the Planning Commission. All projects within the boundaries of the Master Plan would be subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA), as described further below. Depending on the permit, environmental determinations would be made either by the City Planner, Planning Commission, or, in the limited instances described above, by the City Council. Portions of +!he Master Plan, together with the City's implementing ordinances, would serve as Gf and would implement the local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio areas of the Coastal Zone, pursuant to the requirements of the California Coastal Act. The Master Plan would establish the standards for all development within the Village and Barrio portions within the Coastal Zone. In order for the Master PlaA and Design Guidelinesdevelopment standards and other Master Plan provisions to be effective within the Coastal Zone, Coastal Commission approval is required. Projects within the Coastal Zone that are exempt from Coastal Development Permits, per Chapter 21.201 of the CMC, may also be exempt from discretionary permit requirements. Non-exempt development on properties within the Coastal Zone would require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. CEQA Requirements for Subsequent Actions The scope of this document is limited to those elements of the Master Plan where sufficient information exists to allow an informed evaluation of potentral impacts. In accordance with Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines, those aspects of the Master Plan (e.g., potential projects) for which insufficient information exists are considered speculative and are not addressed in this Initial Study. Each subsequent development action will be subject to its own project-specific CEQA review. Further CEQA compliance shall not be required for development within the Master Plan unless the proposed project meets one or more of the following conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162: • The proposed project is not sufficiently discussed in the MND or represents a substantial change from the actions addressed by the Master Plan MND, and the change would require major revisions to the Master Plan MND due to new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Master Plan MND. • Substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Master Plan MND to disclose new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the Master Plan MND. • There is new information of substantial importance not known at the time the Master Plan MND was approved that shows any of the following: o The project would have any new significant effects not discussed in the Master Plan MND. April 2018 -16-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE ANO BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 o There are impacts that were determined to be significant in the Master Plan MND that will be substantially increased. o There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects identified in the Master Plan MNO, and the project proponent declines to adopt those measures or alternatives. o There are mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Master Plan MND that would substantially reduce one or more significant impact~ and the project proponent declines to adopt those measures or alternatives. If subsequent environmental review is required, the City will prepare an Initial Study to determine the appropriate form of review. It is intended that this MND will be used by the City to provide the baseline and context for preparation of any required subsequent environmental documentation. Each subsequent development action will be subject to its own project-specific CEQA review. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES: Carlsbad is a coastal community located in northwest San Diego County, 35 miles north of downtown San Diego. The City of Oceanside is located to the north, the City of Encinitas lies to the south, and the cities of Vista and San Marcos as well as unincorporated areas of San Diego County are located to the east. The Master Plan area is bordered by primarily residential uses and the Pacific Ocean on the west, 1-5 and primarily residential and commercial development on the east, and Buena Vista Lagoon and mostly res idential uses on the north, and soutt:ierfl portions of tt:ie City to tt:ie soutt:i. Development south of the Master Plan area primarily includes residential development, as well as Agua Hedionda lagoon and the Encina Power Station. Portions of both the Village and Barrio are located within the statewide Coastal Zone (refer to Figure~ 8 3 and 4 for Coastal Zone boundaries, Co95tal Zane 8o1:Jndaries). The Master Plan area currently contains a mix of residential and commercial uses, along with parks and community facilities. The Village is located within the City's historic center and downtown. Land uses within the Village include ret ail stores, offices, financial institutions, restaurants, visitor-serving facilities, and residential uses. The Barrio neighborhood is adjacent to, and south of, the Village, and is primarily characterized by small, single-family homes and multi-family housing near 1-5. Non- residential uses in the Barrio are located primarily in its northwest corner along the railroad, Tyler and Roosevelt streets. Non-residential uses include commercial and office buildings, religious facillties1 and light industrial and storage uses. There are also recreational and community facilities located within the Barrio neighborhood, an elementary sct:iool, and several potential historic structures. Automobile access to the Master Plan area is provided via Carlsbad Boulevard and 1-5. Rail access provided by NCTD Coaster and Amtrak is available from the train station located in the Village. The NCTD/ Amtrak rail line bisects the community, just west of State Street, separating the Barrio and Village from the beach area. Crossings of the rail line exist in four locations within the Master Plan area: the grade-separated crossing of Carlsbad Boulevard at the north end of the City; and at-grade crossings at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and Tamarack Avenue. In a similar manner, 1-5 separates the Village and Barrio from the neighborhoods east of 1-5 with crossings available at Carlsbad Village Drive, Chestnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue within or adjacent to the Master Plan area . April 2018 -17-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): Coastal Commission approval and certification is required in orde.rfor the document to be effective for areas within the Coastal Zone. 12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Development within both the Village and Barrio has been subject to the City's General Plan, adopted in 1986, and comprehensively updated in 1994 and 2015. Future development within the Master Plan area would be subject to the policies and regulations identified in the General Plan, and the following analysis relies on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan and has incorporated it by reference. 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: D Aesthetics D Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Agriculture & Forestry Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Air Quality D Hydrology/Water Quality 181 Biological Resources D Land Use & Planning 181 Cultural/Paleontological D Mineral Resources Resources D Geology /Soils 181 Noise 0 Population & Housing D Public Services D Recreation D Transportation/Traffic ~ D Utilities & SeNi6e S11sten:1s Tribal Cultural Resources D Utilities & Service sxstems@ MaAdatory RAdiAgs of SigAificance 181 Mandatorv Findings of Significance 14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by: ~~ ~=-----= cf-11-13 Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Date April 2018 -18-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 15. DETERMINATION: {to be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [gJ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the proposed project CO!;!ld have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a} have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination, indicated above, is hereby approved. ~~~ 'Y/;t/lP DAVID DE CORDOVA, Principal Planner Date April 2018 -19-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 17. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, theh the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses/' as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c}(3}(D}. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where t hey are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project, 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. April 2018 -20-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 9. Tribal consultation, if requested as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, rnust begin prior to release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. Information provided through tribal consultation may inforrn the lead agency's assessment as to whether tribal cultural resources are present, and the significance of any potential impacts to such resources, Prior to beginning consultation, lead agencies may request information from the Native American Heritage Commission regarding its Sacred Lands File, per Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.94, as well as the California Historical Resources Information System administered by t he California Office of Historic Preservation. April 2018 -21-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 I. AESTHETICS Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic D D IZl D vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock D D D IZl outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its D D IZl D surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or D D IZl D nighttime views in the area? a) Less than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas within the Village and Barrio consist of scenic corridors and views to and from the coastline. A substantial adverse effect to scenic vistas could occur if development within the .Village and Barrio introduces physical features that are not characteristic of existing development, obstructs an identified public scenic vista, impairs scenic views from other properties, or has a substantial change to the natural landscape. Implementation of the Master Plan would involve improvements and infill development within the existing Village and Barrio neighborhoods. Development within the Master Plan area would serve to fill gaps in the existing Village and Barrio neighborhoods and relieve pressure to develop in more scenic open space areas of the City. While densification of some areas may occur in the form of new or expanded buildings or other improvements, all development within the Master Plan area would be required to be consistent with the policies and development standards identified in the Master Plan. Most new construction {excluding limited improvements, such as some additions aM single family home and minor exterior enhancements), also would be subject to the design guidelines. These standards and guidelines provide design criteria to property owners, merchants, and others interested in development or property improvements within the Village and Barrio in order to regulate the physical aspects of new development such as building massing, landscaping, signage, etc., as well as reinforce the desired building forms and enhance the existing character of the community. Additionally, the proposed development standards and design guidelines would allow access to coastal views while preserving and improving the general visual character of the area and ensuring that opportunities to enjoy scenic views are either preserved or enhanced. Thus, substantial adverse effects to scenic vistas and other scenic resources would be less t han significant. b} No Impact. No State-designated scenic highways are located within or adjacent to the Master Plan area. Thus, implementation of the Master Plan would not impact scenic resources within the view shed of a State-designated highway. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan is proposed to guide future development within the Village and Barrio. Development within the Master Plan area would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Village and Barrio and surrounding areas, since the majority of new development would occur within previously developed areas and substantial changes to land uses and building design within these areas are not proposed. Individual development projects would be subject to development and planning review under the proposed Master Plan, and must therefore conform to development standards and, for most new development, the design guidelines regarding aesthetic qualities such as lighting, signage, landscaping, and building and roof formsheights and setbacks. The April 2018 -22-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Development development £Standards proposed within the Master Plan, which are consistent with the City's General Plan, would regu late physical aspects of development such as building coverage, height and setbacks; signage; and landscape parking and open spacehardscape requirements. The development standards and design guidelines would serve to implement and enhance the existing character within the Village and Barrio as new development and property improvements occur, and address many components of site layout, building massing, roof form, building facades, and appurtenances. All Village and Barrio development projects would be required to be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, goals, and action programs and other relevant land use documents such as the Local Coastal Program. CMC, and Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the Master Plan and General Plan would ensure that future development would enhance and unify the existing visual quality of built environment s within the Master Plan area and would ensure that adverse effects to the visual character or quality of the Master Plan area and its surroundings would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The primary sources of exterior lighting in an urban setting are typically associated with street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination through signage and other light ing, security lighting, and landscape lighting. Depending upon the location of the light source and its proximity to adjacent light-sensitive uses, light introduction has t he potential to be a nuisance, thus affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear night sky. Light spillage is typically defined as unwanted illumination from light fixtures on adjacent properties. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable result from looking directly into a light sou rce of a luminary. New development within the Master Plan area would introduce new sources of light and contribute to existing_ conditions of light and glare; however, development would occur within areas that are al ready developed, where moderate light and glare already exist, and would not be out of character within the urban environment. Moreover, most new development would be subject to Design Guideline provisions addressing light and glare through properly designed and placed fixtures that feature downcast or low cut-off fixtures. Therefore, impact s related to light and glare would be less than significant. II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST Less than RESOURCES~ Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Significant Impact Miti~ation Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to D D. D ~ the farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural D D D ~ use, or a Williamson Act contract? April 2018 -23-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST Less than RESOURCES~ Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Would the project": Incorporated fl_lR,,.el~·e etl=leF el:laAges iA tl=le e*istiRg awireAmer1t, wl=liel:I, ihi:e ta tl=leiF leeatieA eF Aat1::1Fe, ee1::1lEI Fes1::1lt iA eeA1,<eFsieA sf FaFmlaAEI ts A9A agrirnltural use SF eeMersieA of foFest laAEI te Asn ferest use? Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause D D D l;gJ rezonlng of, forest land {as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(gl}, or timberland {as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104{g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of 0 D D ~ forest land to non-forest use? e} Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland D D 0 .lXlB to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? * In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects. lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 (LESA) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land. Including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Soard. a-QE} No Impact. The Master Plan encompasses an urbanized area that is designated for commercial, open space, public, residential, transportation corridor, hospitality, ~illage, and visitor commercial uses. The Master Plan would primarily involve infill development withih existing developed areas and would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlahd of Statewide Importance or other farmland to noh-agricultural uses. The Master Plan would not cohflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts as there are no agricultural or forestry uses within the Master Plan area. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources are anticipated. c-d} No Impact. As described above, the Master Plan area is urbanized and implementation of the plan would not result in the loss or conversion of forest lahd or land dedicated to timberland production into non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts to forestry resources are anticipated. e) No Impact. Refer to II.a through 11.d. April 2018 -24-lnrtial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Ill. AIR QUALITY~ Potentially Less than less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of D D 0 D the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air D D 0 D quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality D D 0 D standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial D D 0 D pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a D D 0 D substantial number of people? * Where available. the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or a Tr pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan area is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District {SDAPCD). The SDAPCD develops and administers local guidelines and regulations for stationary air pollutant sources within the SDAB, and also develops plans and programs to meet attainment requirements for both National Ambient Air Quality Standards {NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards {CAAQS). The SDAPCD and SAN DAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for the SDAB. An area is designated as "in attainment" when it is compliant with the NAAQS and/or CAAQS, as set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency {US EPA) or the California Air Resources Board (CARB). These standards identify the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in an air quality assessment include ozone (03). nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2}. particulate matter (PM101 and PM2.sL lead and toxic air contaminants. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOxL are precursors to the formation of ground-level 02. As of December 2016, the SDAB is in attainment for all criteria pollutants under the NAAQS, with the exception of 03 (8-Hour) and PM101 which is listed as unclassifiable. The SDAB currently has a nonattainment designation for 03 and particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.s under the CAAQS. It is currently in attainment under CAAQS for CO, NO2, SO21 lead and sulfates. Tl=le SDAB is currently classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the federal 8 ho1:1r standard for ozone (O~) and a nonattainment area for the state standard for partic1:1late matter less than or eql:lal to 10 microns (PM..G), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PMM), and the 1 hour and 8 ho1:1rs standards for 0 ,.. The SDAPCD's plans and control measures designed to attain the federal and state air quality standards for those criteria air pollutants for which the SDAB is in nonattainment are outlined in the San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy {RAQS). The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions and growth projections, respectively, to project future emissions and determine the strategies and regulatory controls necessary to reduce emissions. The RAQS, which was adopted by April 2018 -25-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 the SDAPCD in 1992, is updated on a triennial basis with the most recent revision prepared in December 2016. The SDAPCD has also developed the SDAB1s input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in nonattainment of national air quality standards for the air basin . The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the attainment plan for the air basin. To determine consistency with the RAQS, compliance with all applicable SDAPCD rules and regulations; compliance with all proposed or adopted control measures; and consistency with the growth forecasts utilized in preparation of the RAQS, {based on regional population projections prepared by SAN DAG) must be demonstrated. As described in Section 3.2 of the Recirculated Portions of the General Plan EIR, development allowed under the General Plan, which includes the Master Plan area, would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the General Plan region is in nonattainment. Although the goals and policies of the General Plan and other recommended measures would reduce the net increase in emissions for which the SDAB is in nonattainment status, it is not possible at this time to state with certainty that these measures would result in no net increase in nonattainment pollutant emissions. The General Plan is considered to be in conflict with the RAQS beca1:1se it will allo..,, de1•1elopment in excess of the grov,•th profections on v,•hich the RAGS is current!•,• based. Altho1:1gh this conflict could be eliminated b',' 1:1pdating the gro>Mh projections in the next triennial 1:1pdate of the RAGS, it is considered a significant and 1:1na¥oidable impact beca1:1se updating the RAGS is within the jurisdiction and control of the SDAPCD, and the City cannot assure the timing and implementation of updates to the MG& Although the Master Plan is within the scope of development that was anticipated in Carlsbad's General Plan and the SANDAG growth projections used to develop the RAQS and SIP, ~Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would facilitate development within the City that would allow additional residential units and commercial/office/light industriaf space by 2035 buildout over existing conditions as well as. in e*cess ofthat ass1:1med fur the current ¥ersion ofthe RAQS. This additional development would contribute to the conflict with the RAQS identified in the General Plan EIR. Although future development under the proposed Master Plan would contribute to the significant cumulative impact associated with implementation of the RAQS, this contribution would not trigger the need for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project because the Findings of Fact associated with the General Plan EIR provide coverage for subsequent projects consistent with the General Plan. Section 15152{f){l) of CEQA Guidelines states, "Where a Lead Agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of a later EIR or negative declaration.'1 On September 22, 2015, the Carlsbad City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-242 which certified the Final EIR for General Plan and adopted Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Findings of Fact concluded that buildout under the General Plan would result in cumulative, unavoidable significant impacts related to implementation of the RAQS, despite the goals and policies of the General Plan and other recommended mitigation measures (incorporated by reference herein) that would reduce the net increase in emissions for which the SDAB is in nonattainment status. However, the Findings of Fact contain overriding considerations, which establish that the environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh April 2018 -26-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 any remaining significant adverse impact of the General Plan associated with impacts to air quality. Therefore, related impacts associated with the proposed project need not be considered significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. As described in Ill.a, above, the SDAB is currently classified as a ffiarginal nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour standard for 03 as well as a nonattainment area for the state standard for PM10 and PM2.s, and the 1-hour and 8-hours standards for 03. The APCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County. Due to its proximity to Carlsbad with similar geographic and climatic characteristics. the Del Mar -Mira Costa College monitoring station concentrations of 8-hour and 1-hour 03 are considered most representative of 03 in Carlsbad. The Escondido -East Valley Parkway monitoring station is the nearest location where PM10, PMi.s, NO2, and CO concentrations are monitored. The El Cajon -Redwood Avenue monitoring station is the nearest location where SO2 concentrations are monitored. Data available for these monitoring sites from 2011 through 2015 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded are presented in Table l. As shown. air quality within the region was in compliance with both CAAQS and NAAQS for NOz, CO, and 502 during this monitoring period. Table 1-Freguenc:y: of Air Quality: Standard Violations, Number of Da:y:s Exceeding Standard Monitoring Site Year State Q3 State 03 Federal Q3 State PM10* Federal PMz.s* {1-Hour} (8-Hour} (8-Hourl Del Mar-Mira Costa 2011 0 1 0 ---- College 2012 0 2 2 ---- 2013 0 0 0 ---- 2014 1 5 2 ---- 2015 1 2 1 ---- Escondido -East 2011 ---0{Ol 0{O) -- Valley Parkway 2012 ---0{O) 3.1(1) -- 2013 ---6.0(ll 1.1(1) -- 2014 ---0(0) 1.0(1) --- 2015 ---0(0) 0(0} ---* As of 2014. measurements of PM1o and PM2.s are collected every 6 days and daily, respectively. The number of days exceeding standards is a mathematical estimate of the number of days concentrations would have exceeded t he standard' on an annual basis. had every day been monitored. The numbers in parentheses are. the measured number of samples that exceeded the standard. Future development and improvement projects occurring within the Master Plan area would result in temporary increases in air pollutant and dust emissions during grading and construction, primarily generated from construction equipment diesel exhaust, soil disturbance, and construction worker and heavy duty truck trips. Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.s) emissions would primarily result from grading and site preparation activities. Emission of other criteria air pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles. Such emissions would be minimized through standard co nstruction measures, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP} requirements,---aoo. Best Management Practices (BMPs), and when applicable. the California Green Building Standards Code, that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant em issions during construction. Future projects would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which requires that projects take steps to restrict visible emissions of future dust beyond property lines. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust that may be generated during grading and construction activities. April 2018 -27-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16~01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Operational activities of future projects would generate emission of other criteria pollutants, including 0 2, NO2, co, SO21 PM10, and PM2.s through sources such as vehicular traffic, heating, and landscaping. Future projects within the Master Plan would fall within the net new operational emissions identified in Section 3.2 (Table 3.2-10) of the Recirculated Portions of the General Plan EIR, which were estimated based on the net change in criteria pollutant emissions between development of land uses without and with the General Plan. Due to the increase in anticipated average daily traffic and growth in area source emissions as a result of future development under the General Plan, emissions of voe, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.s were determined to exceed the SDAPCD's project-level, daily thresholds. While the measures, goals and policies identified in the City's General Plan, Climate Action Plan, SWPPP requirements, and the Green Building Code, as well as the adopted mitigation measures for air quality impacts in the General Plan EIR, provide a framework for reducing project-level impacts associated with construction and operational emissions, impacts due to increased emissions from future development were determined to be significant and unavoidable in the Findings of Fact adopted for the General Plan EIR. However, the Findings of Fact contain overriding considerations, which establish that the environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh any remaining significant adverse impact of the General Plan associated with impacts to air quality. Thus, as discussed in Issue Ill.a, the contribution from development under the proposed Master Plan need not be considered significant pursuant to Section 15152(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. c) Less than Significant Impact. As described in 111.b, above,. the SDAB is currently a R1arginalin nonattainment ~for the federal 8-hour standard for 03 as well as a-nonattainment area-for the state standard for PM10 and PM-2.5, and the 1-hour and 8-hour£standards for 0 3. The General Plan EIR identified significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from buildout of the General Plan, which includes the Master Plan area. Buildout of the General Plan would result in operational emissions of voe, NOx, PM10, and PM2.s that would exceed SDAPCD project-level, daily thresholds. Accordingly, the General Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in VOC and NOx (precursors of 0 2), for which the SDAB is in nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS, as well as for PM10 and PM2.s, for which the SDAB is in nonattainment under the CAAQS. Conformance with the measures, goats and policies of the General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, the city's SWPPP requirements, and the Green Building Standards Code, as well as implementation of the adopted mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR, would reduce the General Plan's net increase in emissions for which the SDAB is in nonattainment status. However, in the absence of specific information regarding the size, location, timing, and other characteristics of future development allowed under the General Plan, it is not possible at this time to quantify that these measures would result in no net increase in nonattainment pollutant emissions. Therefore, the Findings of Fact for the General Plan EIR concluded that the impacts due to increased emissions from future development were significant and unavoidable. However, the Findings of Fact contain overriding considerations, which establish that the environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh any remaining significant adverse impact of the General Plan associated with impacts to air quality. Thus, as discussed in Issue 111,a, the contribution from development under the proposed Master Plan need not be considered significant pursuant to Section 15152(f)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines. d) Less than Significant Impact. In addition to the impacts from criteria pollutants described in Ill.a through 111.b, above, impacts also may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal governments as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources such as automobiles; and area sources such as landfills. The pr1mary TAC of concern,. as identified by the CARB, is diesel engine exhaust particulate matter. Certain land uses are April 2018 -28-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 more susceptible to the adverse health effects of TACs, including residences, schools, hospitals,. resident care facilities, child care centers, playgrounds, athletic facilities, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be severely impacted by changes in air quality. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential for future projects to result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of the General Plan would result in an increase in criteria pollutant emissions, which could potentially result in increased susceptibility of sensitive receptors to adverse health effects. The EIR concluded that long-term exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of construction-related TACs is not anticipated to occur during construction of projects within the City, which would include the Master Plan area. Construction-related impacts were determined to be less than significant, and thus, also less than significant for the Master Plan. No new statfonary sources are proposed within the General Plan area that have not been previously operating within the City and impacts to sensitive receptors from new or modified stationary sources from implementation of the General Plan have been assessed as less than significant. Although the SDAB is currently in nonattainment for state ozone and particulate matter thresholds, the background concentrations of these pollutants are generally low, and the SDAB is increasingly improving at a consistent rate. Thus, health risks associated with regional pollutant emissions are expected to decrease over buildout of the General Plan, and development under the General Plan is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants. Conformance with the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, the city's SWPPP requirements and Green Building Standards Code provisions, as well as implementation of the adopted mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR, would reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, as noted in the Recirculated Portions of the Gen~ral Plan EIR Section 3.2, due to the absence of site-specific information regarding the TAC generation for individual projects implemented under the General Plan (required to perform a health risk assessment to determine potential air quality effects to sensitive receptors), exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is assessed as significant. Because of the inability to define specific mitigation measures for potential TAC impacts, the Findings of Fact for the General Plan EIR concluded that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. However, the Findings of Fact contain overriding considerations, which establish that the environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh any remaining significant adverse impact of the proposed General Plan associated with impact to air quality. Thus, as discussed in Issue Ill.a, the contribution from development under the proposed Master Plan need not be considered significant pursuant to Section 15152(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. e) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of future projects within the Master Plan area could generate odors from the operation of construction vehicles andL'.Qr equipment exhaust from volatile organic compounds. ammonia, CO2, hydrogen sulfide. methane, alcohols. disulfides, dusts or other pollutants. Such exposure would be in trace amounts, localized in the immediate area, and would generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. GMoreover, odors produced during construction would be short-term, and would not result in a long-term odorous impact to the surrounding area. Development within the Master Plan area would be required to comply with all local, state, and federal regulations and permit requirements related to odor control. Thus, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant. April 2018 -29-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional D (81 D D plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local D ~ D D or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act {including but not D ~ D D limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or D D D ~ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree D D D ~ preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adoi:>ted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community D D D (81 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. While the vast majority of the Master Plan area is currently developed and does not support important biological resources, the northern area of the Master Plan is adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon. The Buena Vista Lagoon includes species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The area is currently developed as part of Maxton Brown Park and adjacent private property improvements along the north side of Laguna Drive. Any development of this area could have indirect impacts related to human activity, decreased water quality and altered hydrology, elevated noise and dust levels, light intrusion, and the introduction of invasive wildlife or plant species. Future development adjacent to the lagoon under the Master Plan would be required to comply with the City's General Plan goals and policies related to preserving and protecting significant biological resources (Goal 4-G.3 and Policies 4-P.9 and 4-P.19). The Supplemental District Standards for the Village Center (Section 2.7.1 of the Master Plan) also specify that development within the two parcels in the Village Center District that border Buena Vista Lagoon is required to comply with the Carlsbad Habitat April 2018 -30-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Management Plan and other applicable requirements, including those related to slope protection and coastal access. In accordance with Policy 4-P-19 of the General Plan, the following mitigation measure shall apply to future projects within the Master Plan, as applicable. Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Prior to approval of any development located within or adjacent to sensitive biological resources identified on Figure 4-2 of the General Plan, a biological resource assessment shall be prepared to determine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. If impacts are identified, the biological assessment shall identify, and the project shall implement, measures to reduce project impacts consistent with: (1) the City's Guidelines for Biological Studies and Riparian and Wetland Buffers; (2) General Plan Policies 4-P.9, 4-P.19, and 4-P.64; and (3) the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 810-1, would reduce potential impacts to sensitive species to less than significant. b) less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. As discussed in IV.a, development at the northern end of the Master Plan area could indirectly affect the Buena Vista lagoon which contains riparian habitat and wetlands regulated by the CDFW. Indirect impacts could result from elevated dust or increased sediment loads in runoff from construction activities. Indirect impacts could also result from permanent alterations to hydrology upstream of habitats, including increased runoff, sedimentation, or pollutant loads, and increased human activity1 which could result in trampling and disturbance. If wetlands subject within the jurisdiction of the CDFW could be potentially impacted by a future project, development of the project could not occur until a Stream bed Alteration Agreement is obtained from CDFW. As a sensitive biological resource, implementation of Mitigation Measure B1O-1 would reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands by requiring impacts be mitigated. In addition, future development impacting wetlands within the jurisdiction of the CDFW would be required to obtain a Stream bed Alteration Agreement (SAA) under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. As a condition of issuing an SAA, the CDFW would,require compensation for project impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, would reduce potential impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat within the jurisdiction of the CDFW to less than significant. c) less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. As discussed in IV.a, development at the northern end of the Master Plan area could indirectly affect the Buena Vista Lagoon which contains riparian habitat and wetlands regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Indirect impacts could result from elevated dust or increased sediment loads in runoff from construction activities. Indirect impacts could also result from permanent alterations to hydrology upstream of habitats, including increased runoff, sedimentation, or pollutant loads, and increased human activity, which could result in trampling and disturbance. As a sensitive biological resource, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands by requiring impacts be mitigated. In addition, future development impacting wetlands within the jurisdiction of the USACE would be required to obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE and a 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board April 2018 -31-Initial Study Project Name; VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (RWQCB) under federal Clean Water Act. As a condition of issuing those approvals, the USACE and RWQCB would require compensation for project impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat. lmplementatfon of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, would reduce potential impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat within the jurisdiction of the USACE to less than significant. d) No Impact. The Master Plan area does not contain large blocks of open space or undeveloped areas that would serve as wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Development within the Master Plan area would primarily involve redevelopment of or new development within existing developed areas. Therefore, -implementation of the Master Plan is not anticipated to interfere substantially with migratory fish or wildlife movement or established migratory wildlife corridors, or to impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impact would occur. e) No Impact. The City has developed a set of guidelines to aid in the implementation of the HMP, including the Guidelines for Biological Studies, Guidelines for Preserve Management, Guidelines for Habitat Creation and Restoration, and Guidelines for Riparian Wetland Buffers. The Master Plan, which implements and is consistent with the General Plan, is consistent with these documents, and future projects and improvements conducted pursuant to the Master Plan would be required to be consistent with these documents, as applicable. Therefore, conflicts with the provisions of the City's policies protecting biological resources are not anticipated and no impact would occur. f) No Impact. The City's "Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad" was adopted by the Carlsbad City Council in November 2004. The· HMP outlines specific conservation, management, facility siting, land use, and other measures to be implemented by the City to preserve and protect sensitive biological resources and habitat within the City, while also allowing for growth and development as anticipated under the General Plan. All future development projects would be required to comply with the conditions of the HMP, including compliance with the established mitigation ratios and avoidance and minimization measures for special~status species and sensitive vegetation. As shown in Figure 3.3-1 of the General Plan EIR, the Master Plan area is not located within an existing or proposed hardline preserve area, nor are any of the City's individual preserves (e.g., ecological reserves, City-or privately-owned preserves, or project-related preserves) located within the Master Plan area. Therefore, the Master Plan would not interfere with the implementation of the HMP, and no impact would occur. V. CUL TURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL Less than RESOURCES Potentially Significant w1th Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined D D ~ D in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource D ~ D D pursuant to §15064.5? e) (;a~se a s~es'l:aAtial ael>,1eFse e!:iaAge iR Hie sigAifieaAEe ef a tFieal el:lltl:lFal Fesel:lFee as B ~ B B elefiReel iA Pl:lelie Resel:lFees Geele i1:g74:;i G}f}_Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique D ~ D D geologic feature? April 2018 -32-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16~01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 v. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL Less than RESOURCES Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated e}Q}_Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ~dedicated D D ~ D cemeteries? a) Less than Significant Impact. As described in General Plan EIR Section 3.71 Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, there are several historic resources located within the Master Plan area that have been listed in or determined eligible for listing in the national and California registers as individual historic resources. Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, located at 400 Carlsbad Village Drive, is a historic landmark listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The California Office of Historic Preservation has listed as an historic landmark Frazier's Well (Alt Karlsbad) at 2802 Carlsbad Boulevard. The Magee House, located at 258 Beech Street, and currently home to the City1s Historical Society Museum, has been identified as a historic site by the San Diego Archaeological Center. A total of six other properties within the Master Plan area are eligible for listing ih the San Diego Register of Historic Resources, California Reg-ister of Historic Resources, or National Register of Historic Places, including the following: • 2978 Carlsbad Boulevard (Queen Anne Victorian, 1887; NRHP-eligible) • 400 Elm Avenue (Carlsbad Village Drive) (Carpenter Gothic, 1887; NRHP-eligible) • 3309 Roosevelt Street (Vernacular, 1918; NRHP-eligible) • 3329 Roosevelt Street (B/C Spanish, 1923; NRHP-eligible) • 3080 Lincoln Street (Monterey, 1925; potential California Historical Landmark) • 2956 State Street (Spanish Eclectic, pre-1925; potential California Historical Landmark) The Village and the Barrio neighborhoods are considered potential historic resource areas by the City. The Village is the historic downtown of the City, known for specialty shops, clothing stores, and restaurants, and is home to buildings that consist of New England-style architecture. The Barrio is the first neighborhood established in Carlsbad in the 1920s, with several locally recognized historic buildings, businesses, and sites. In addition, numerous other sites within the Master Plan area are considered by the City, the Save Our Heritage Organization, and/or the Carlsbad Historical Society as containing significant features in the local architectural and historic growth of the community. These include: • St. Michael's Episcopal Church, 2775 Carlsbad Boulevard (1894) • St. Patrick's Church (Heritage Hall), Magee Park, 2650 Garfield Street (1926) • Red Apple Inn/Army Navy Academy, 2585 Carlsbad Boulevard (1927) • Carlsbad Mineral Springs Hotel/Carlsbad-By-the-Sea, 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard (1930) • Twin Inns/Ocean House, 2978 Carlsbad Boulevard (1887) • Cohn House/Norte, 3003 Carlsbad Boulevard (1929) • Gage House/Monterey Condominiums, 3080 Lincoln Street (1934) • Killian Building, 2900 State Street (1920s) • South Coast Land Company/Garcia's Barbershop, 2956 State Street (Circa 1914) • Los Diego Hotel/Caldo Pomodoro Restaurant, 2907 State Street (1925) • Carlsbad Theatre, 2822 State Street (1926-27) • Barrio Museum, 3304 Roosevelt Street (1943) April 2018 -33-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 • Ramirez House, 3309 Roosevelt Street (1918) • Mission Santiago, 3329 Roosevelt Street (Circa 1923) • Gaus House, 3442 Roosevelt Street (1929) The Master Plan identifies historic preservation as an important element in the protection of valued historic buildings and smaller historic assets such as older single-family homes, as well as protection and enhancement of the existing character of the area. The Master Plan supports the City's existing historic preservation efforts, and future use of state and federal funding to preserve and encourage the restoration of historic buildings. The Master Plan recommends that the City, among other things1 develop an implementation program to encourage the voluntary rehabilitation and preservation of qualified historic resources in the Master Plan area, formalize a local historical marker/plague program, and allow additional uses for qualified historic properties and structures. •nork 'Nith its Historic Preservation Commission and/or Carlsead 1=1istorical Society to identify and set preser.•ation standards for historic buildings in the Village and Barrio. Recornmendatio11s such as establishing a ci,.•ic green instead of parking lots around the historic T•,vin Inns property would enhance the historic character of the building 'Nithout jeopardiz.ing its historic status. Although implementation of the proposed Master Plan may resul t in actions that could adversely affect historic resources, future projects and improvements would be requited to be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies requiring the protection and preservation of such resources (Goa ls 7-G.1 and 7-G.2, Policies7-P.2, 7-P.5, and 7-P.6). Compliance with these goals and policies would help to minimize or avoid impacts to historical resources. The Master Plan provides further protection where future projects could potentially impact designated or potential historic resources. Section 2.6.7 of the Master Plan. which describes the procedures for modification of Area-Wide Standards identified in the Master Plan, notes in Item B.5 that modifications to development standards are allowed in order to protect or accommodate a designated or potential historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Section 6.3.2 of the Master Plan, which lists improvements or activities that are exempt from discretionary permits issued pursuant to the Master Plan, notes in Item C.3 that a project that is otherwise exempt ftorn discretionary review, but that has the potential to result in significant adverse effects on environmental resources such as a designated or potential historic resource, would be subject to a minor site development plan permit. In addition, historic resources in the City are subject to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Title 22), which includes criteria for including resources in the City's historic resources inventory, historic site and landmark designation procedures, and historic district designation procedures. The Historic Preservation Ordinance also requires permits to work on a historic resource, historic landmark, or within historic districts, and requires that historic resources are kept in good repair while conforming to the requirements of the California Historical Building Code. Only resources listed on the national or state historic resource registers are currently required to comply with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. For any other potential historic resources, compliance with the ordinance is voluntary. The City of Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (dated ~September 2017) are also in place to help protect historic resources in the City. The guidelines establish standards of performance for re source investigation and evaluation of significance, and a method of preserving identified resources. An architectural history sensitivity model is provided to indicate areas of high, moderate, or low sensitivity and aid the city in making informed decisions about proposed land uses. A list of preferred treatment options and mitigation measures is provided to address potential impacts to eligible cultural resources. Compliance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines, as well as implementation of the applicable General April 2018 -34-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16"01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Plan goals and policies, would ensure that impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. The Master Plan is located within an area that is culturally significant to two Native American tribes known to have occupied the area: the Luisenos and the Dieguenos (Kumeyaay). While the potential exists for buried historic or prehistoric archaeological resources to be discovered durihg future developmeht and improvernent activities within the Master Plan area, the probability that grading, excavation, or other ground disturbing activities would impact undocumented buried archaeological resources is moderately low, due to the intense land development that has occurred in the area. Future development projects within the Master Plan area would be required to implement the applicable Geheral Plan goals and policies pertaining to archaeological resources, including Policy 7-P.8, which requires mohitoring during grouhd disturbing activities in previously undisturbed areas or areas with known archaeological resources, and Policy 7-P.9, which ensures the proper treatment of cultural resources discovered during cohstruction. Future development projects would be reviewed pursuant to the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (dated September 2017}. which provides general methods and standards of analysis for resource evaluation; an archaeological sensitivity model indicating areas of high, moderate, or low sensitivity; and a list of preferred treatment options and mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potential impacts to cultural resources. In accordance with Policies 7-P.7, 7-P.8 and 7-P.9 of the General Plan, as well as the guidance provided in the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. the following mitigation measure shall apply to future projects within the Master Plan, as applicable. Mitigation Measure ARCH-1: Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground disturbance in areas which have been previously undisturbed or where historic or prehistoric archaeological resources are known to exist, a cultural resource assessment shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for significant archaeological resources to occur. Any field survey or work shall be conducted by the archaeologist with a Native American monitor present. If significant cultural resources are observed or suspected to occur beneath the surface, the assessment shall identify mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Assessment and survey procedures, and +!reatment of any cultural resources discovered during site grading shall comply with the ~Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural~ and Paleontological Resource~ Guidelines. Determination of the significance of the cultural resource(s) and development and implementation of any data reco,..ery µrogram appropriate treatment measures and procedures shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with interested Native American tribes. All Native American human remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to their most likely descendent and repatriated. The final disposition of tribal cultural resources artifacts not directiy associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation with interested tribes in accordance with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Guidelines-;--i-f--the artifact is not accepted b•t ~,ati>.1e American tribes, it sl'lall be offered to an institution staffed by qualified professionals, as ma~· be determined by the City Planner. Artifacts include material recmwred from all phases of work, including the initial survey, testing, indexing, data recovery, ans monitoring. Prior to occupancy, a cultural resource monitoring report identifying all materials recoveres shall be submitted to the South Coast Information Center with a copy to the City Planner. Implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. April 2018 -35· Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16~01 E} le55 th&R SigRffia,Rt lmfJBGt vAth Mitigst5aR Messuaees IRG9lp9fflted-. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, c1:Jltural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural i.•alue to a California Native AFRerican tribe that are either included or deterFRined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resm.trces or inch,1ded in a local register of historical resources, as eie:f.ined in subeiivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1. /\s discussed in V.a, the Master Plan area does contain historic resources. Ho,,,cever, these resources are strnctures which are not considered of cultural value to California Native AR1erican tribes. As eliscussed in V.b, the Master Plan area is located 'Nithin an area that is culturally significant to two Native American tribes known to have occupied the area: the Luisenos and the Dieg1:1enos (K1:1meyaay). As a result, future developA1ent pl:lrsuant to tl=le Master Plan will be required to implement Mitigation Measure ARCH 01. In addition, fut1:Jre development projects within the Master Plan area ,,.,«01:Jld be req1:1ired to implement the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to arcllaeological reso1:1rces, including Policies 7 P.8 and 7 P.9. The City Ras a stanEling tribal cons1:1ltation request pursuant to AsseFRbly Bill 52 with the San L1:Jis Rey Band of Mission Indians (SLR). Accordingly, the Cit',' contacted SLR regarding the project on Jan1:Jar>( 21, 20le. Tl=le Nati'.'e American consl:lltation process began Janl:lary 251 2016, and is ongoing. Implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCH 1 wo1:1ld red1:1ce potential iFRpacts to tribal El:lltural resources to less than significant. df) less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. Paleontological resources are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life, exclusive of humah remaihs. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not directly result in physical construction that could impact paleontological resources. However, ground-disturbing activities associated with future development and redevelopment within the Master Plan area could result in direct or indirect impacts to paleontological resources through the accidental destruction or disturbance of paleontological resources. The majority of the anticipated development and improvement projects would involve redevelopment o.f or new development within existing developed areas. This greatly reduces the potential for encountering intact paleontological resources. Individual projects proposed within the Master Plan area would be required to be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies to minimize or avoid impacts to paleontological resources (Policies 7-P.7, 7-P.8, 7-P.9, and 7-P.10). F.uture development projects would be analyzed per the general methods and standards of analysis provided in the Carlsbad TribaL Cultural. and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. The Guidelines provide a paleontological sensitivity model indicating the areas where geologic formations are likely to yield paleontological resources. In accordance with Policy 7-P.8 of the General Plan, implementation of following mitigation measure shall apply to future projects within the Master Plan, as applicable. Mitigation Measure PALEO~l: Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground disturbance in areas which have a moderate to high potential for paleontological resources, a paleontological reso1:Jrce assessA1ent sllall be cond1:1cted to determine the potential for significant paleontological resources to 8€€Ufbe impacted will be evaluated. If significant paleontological resources could be impacted, a Principal Paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address the following information, as applicable and appropriate, and to conduct mitigation monitoring: April 2018 -36-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 • The level of monitoring {spot checks. part time or full time). protocols and authorization for work stoppages. and safety procedures; • The need for Contractor Awareness Training for all earthmoving personnel for any projects where a monitor will not be present full time; • A research design listing the research questions and the data requirements for those questions; • The level and type of assistance from the contractor needed by the paleontologist to take bulk samples and place them into a safe area for processing; • The methods for fossil collection. fossil preparation. fossil identification. stratigraphic profiles, and curationr • The types of progress reports that will be provided to the project proponent and City (weekly or monthly); • The schedule for reporting; • A recommendation for the updating of the paleontology sensitivity model, which takes into consideration the presence or absence of paleontological resources, the amount of ground disturbance. and the potential for future discoveries; and • The identity of the financially-responsible party. Mitigation monitoring will occur in accordance with the Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. and specimens of significant fossils, all paleontological data. and a copy of the final report shall be curated at the San Diego Natural History Museum.exca•,ation in the area st1spected to cohtain paleontological resot1rces shall be monitored b•, a eit1alified paleontologist. If significant resot1rces are encot1ntered, they shall be reco,.·ered and conveyed to an appropriate repository. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PALEO-1, would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. ef!) Less than Significant Impact. Human remains, particularly those interred outside formal cemeteries, could be disturbed during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with future development or redevelopment projects within the Master Plan area. In accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.S(e), and Public Resources Code 5097 .98, if any human remains are discovered during future development or improvement activities, all work would be halted in the vicinity of the discovery, the appropriate authorities would be notified, and standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains would be adhered to. Therefore, impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains. would be less than significant. April 2018 -37-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Less than less than Significant with No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or D D [gJ D based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? D D [gJ D iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including D D [gJ D liquefaction 7 iv. Landslides? D D [gJ D b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of D D [gJ D topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially r,esult in D D [gJ D on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building D D [gJ D Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers D D D [gJ are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a.i) less than Significant Impact. No known active, potentially active, or inactive faults traverse the Master Plan area, nor is it located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (City General Plan & Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, certified September 22, 2015). The Newport- Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately four miles offshore of the western edge of the Master Plan area, is the closest known active fault. While the potential for on-site rupture cannot be completely discounted (e.g., unmapped faults could conceivably underlie the Master Plan area), the likelihood for such an occurrence is considered low due to the absence of known faulting within or adjacent to the area. Therefore, impacts related to fault rupture from implementation of the proposed Master Plan would be less than significant. a.ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan area is located in seismically active southern California and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region1 including the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault (offshore), as well as the Coronado Bank, La Nacion, Elsinore, Agua Caliente, and San Jacinto fault zones. An earthquake along any of these known active or potentially active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking, and consequently cause injury and/or property April 2018 -38-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 damage within the Master Plan area. This could potentially result in significant impacts to future development projects within the Village and Barrio, depending on factors such as event duration, motion frequency, and underlying soil/geologic conditions. The Master Plan would allow for additional development within the Village and Barrio, which could expose people and property to strong seismic ground shaking. Individual project designs would incorporate measures to accommodate seismic loading, pursuant to the applicable California State University Seismic Safety Requirements, as well as existing guidelines such as the California Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2). The CBC provides appropriate measures to accommodate seismic loading parameters in California. Based on the incorporation of applicable measures into development project design and construction, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a.iii) Less thah Significant Impact. liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs during severe ground shaking whereby soils reduce greatly in strength and temporarily behave similarly to a fluid rather than a solid. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. Certain areas of the Master Plan, as well as the City in general, have a higher risk of liquefaction due to the presence of hydrophytic soils that are often saturated or characteristic of wetlands (e.g., Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons). The proposed Master Plan would allow for additional development in areas that may be at risk for liquefaction; however, new buildings and structures would be constructed in compliance with the City's Building Codes and Regulations (Municipal Code Title 18), which adopts the ~2016 Edition of the CBC, Volumes 1 and 2. Risks from liquefaction would be analyzed as part of the development review process and potential dangers from liquefaction would be addressed as required by the CBC, including Section 1610, Soil Lateral Loads, which requires design that resists lateral soil Loads. Potential design considerations could include removal or re~compaction of liquefiable soils, in site ground densification, ground modification and improvement, deep foundations, reinforced shallow foundations, and reinforced structures to resist deformation during liquefaction. Compliance with the CBC and implementation of the proposed Master Plan would result in less than significant impacts to people and structures from seismic-related ground failure1 including liquefaction a.iv) Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan does not include any areas identified as being susceptible to landslides and the overall risk of landslides is low (City General Plan & Climate Action Plan Fina[ Environmental Impact Report, certified September 221 2015). Moreover, no blasting or other activities that could res1.1lt in rock falls or trigger landslides or slope instability are anticipated to be required for future development projects within the Master Plan area. Given the absence of active faults and the relatively level topography in the area, the potential for seismically induced landslides is low and impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of new projects and improvements within the Master Plan area could result in exposed soil via construction activities such as ground disturbance, earthwork excavation, and removal of unsuitable soil materials. These activities would result in temporary impacts to the local topography and soils. Potential sedimentation and erosion impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures to minimize on-site erosion and off-site transport of eroded materials in compliance with NPDES permit requirements. Control measures would include applicable BMPs (per the City's BMP Design Manual), such as covering stockpiled excavated materials to reduce potential off-site sediment transport and regular inspection and maintenance of all :;ediment catchment facilities to ensure proper function and effectiveness. Compliance with NPDE1S permit requirements as well as City standards for sedimentation April 2018 -39-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 and erosion control BMPs and other applicable City regulations, codes, and ordinances, would ensure that construction impacts from future development projects would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Items VI.a.iii and VI.a.iv, the Village and Barrio are not located within an area prone to landslides or liquefaction. Although implementation of the proposed Master Plan could result in development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or may become unstable, future development would be required to comply with the City's Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.16), which requires a geotechnical investigation as part of the grading permit application process that would identify potential hazards and provide recommendations consistent with City standards. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. Although implementation of the proposed Master Plan could result in development on an expansive soil, future development would be required to comply with the City's Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.16), which requires a geotechnical investigation as part of the grading permit application process that would identify potential hazards and provide recommendations consistent with City standards. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. e) No Impact. The Master Plan area is within the City's Sewer Service Area, where wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal service is provided to customers. No septic tank systems are anticipated to be proposed within the Master Plan area; therefore, no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Less than Less than Significant with No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a D D ~ D significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of D D ~ D reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) Less than Significant Impact. Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including temperature, Wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NzO), ozone (03), and certain hydro-fluorocarbons. These gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth's temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contribute to what is termed "global warming," the trend of warming of the Earth's climate from anthropogenic activities. Global climate change impacts are by nature cumulative; direct impacts cannot be evaluated because the impacts themselves are global rather than localized impacts. California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines GHGs to include the following compounds: CO2, CH41 N20 , 03, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF&)-As individual GHGs have varying heat-trapping properties and atmospheric April 2018 -40-lnftial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units for comparison. The CO2e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure.1 The most common GHGs related to the project are those primarily related to energy usage: CO2, CH4-, and N2O. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), dated September 2015, that is designed to reduce the City's GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, and streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City. The CAP includes goals, policies, and actions for the City to reduce GHG emissions and combat global climate change, and also includes a local GHG emissions inventory, forecasts for future GHG emissions, and a comprehensive strategy to manage and reduce GHG emissions through 2035. The city's CAP contains a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for 2005, an updated baseline inventory for 2011, a projection of emissions to 2035 (corresponding to the General Plan horizon year). a calculation of the city's targets based on a reduction from the 2005 baseline, and emission reductions with implementation of the CAP. The city emitted a total of 630,310 metric tons (MT) CO2e in 2005 and 705,744 MT CO2e in 2011. Accounting for future population and economic growth, including within the Master Plan area, the city proiects GHG emissions of 1,007,473 MT CO2e in 2035. The CAP set a target to achieve a 15 petcent reduction from the 2005 baseline by 2020 based on the recommendation by the CARB. The CAP also includes a target to reduce emissions below the 2005 baseline by 49 percent by 2035. Therefore, the city must implement strategies that reduce emissions to 535,763 MT CO2e in 2020 and 321,458 MT CO2e in 2035. The CAP outlines actions for the City to achieve its proportional share of state GHG emissions reductions by 2020 and 2030. In addition, there are a number of GQther City policies and ordinances pertaining to GHGs that would help reduce emissions, include the Sustainable Energy Master Plan, Carlsbad Building Code Section 18.18 (Uniform Solar Energy Code), and Carlsbad Building Code Section 18.30 (California Energy Code). The Sustainable Energy Master Plan, dated December 2008, provides a report of potential renewable energy sources, and measures to reduce power consumption, as well as an evaluation of energy efficiency and reduction measures. Carlsbad Building Code Section 18.18 adopts the Uniform Solar Energy Code, ~2015 Edition, as a baseline solar energy code for the City. This building code applies to the erection, installation, alteration, repair, replacement, addition to, use, or maintenance of solar systems. Carlsbad Building Code Section 18.30 adopts the California Energy Code, ~2016 Edition, as a baseline energy code for the City. This building code requires new residential units to include provisions specifically designed to allow the later installation of solar energy systems. Future development under the proposed Master Plan would result in an increase in energy consumption and generation of GHG emissions from mobile, stationary, and area sources. Federa l, state, and local regulations, applicable General Plan policies, and associated reduction measures in the CAP would serve to reduce associated impacts. Future development would be required to comply with Title 24 energy performance standards and the proposed General Plan energy conservation policies and actions, including Policy 9~P.2, which promotes energy conservation throughout all municipal operations, and the use of alternative transportation to reduce energy consumption; Policy 9-P.8, which promotes energy efficiency through green building construction and building retrofits; Policy 9-P.10, which promotes energy conservation through reductions in artificial cooling, heating and lighting energy use; and Policy 9-P.12, 1 The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its emissions, and Its global warming potential. The global warming potentlal rs the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat ln the atmosphere, and is expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. for instance, CH4 has a global warming potential of 21, meaning that 1 gram of CH4 traps the same amount of heat as 21 grams of CO2• N2O has a global warming potential of 310. April 2018 -41-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 which directs the city to explore renewable energy resources and infrastructure. Despite the overall increase in future energy use, the state's current and future energy code and City's policies regarding energy use would ensure energy efficient designs in new development and encourage energy efficiency upgrades in existing development, both of which would minimize wasteful, inefficient energy consumption. Consistent with tl::ie General Plan, the Master Plan indicates that the California Gonstrnction Codes (Building, Energy, and Green codes) are the reference documents f:or the building standards applicable to all buildings to be constructed reno¥ated, or rehabilitated within the Village and Barrio. The Master Plan permits modifications to the established development standards; if they would enable are necessary :for development of a project that -t&provides a "significant public benefit." Significant public benefits include projects that exceed minimum Climate Action Plan consistency requirements, exceed local energy efficiency requirements and/or renewable energy requirements, and implement other important actions that would qualify f:or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification or comparable green building rating, since green building serves to reduce GHG emissions. Lighting standards guidelines established in the Master Plan call for the use of energy-efficient lighting and adaptive lighting controls in order to conserve energy. Overall, the Master Plan encourages improvements to ma,dmize the efficiency of all transportation modes and provide alternatives to the traditional automobile. In addition to state and federal actions and General Plan policies and actions to reduce GHG emissions, the following CAP GHG reduction measures are designed to enable the City to achieve its GHG reduction target for 2035 by promoting: • Residential, commercial, and industrial photovoltaic systems • Building cogeneration • Single-family, multi-family, and commercial efficiency retrofits • Commercial commissioning • California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) building code • Solar water heater/heat pump installation • E:fficiency lighting standarqs • Increased zero-emissions vehicle travel • Transportation Demand Management (TOM) • Citywide renewable projects • Water delivery and conservation General Plan EIR Chapter 3.4, Energy1 Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change, provides emissions forecasts for the City as a whole. As indicated in the analysis, implementation of General Plan policies and associated reduction measures in the CAP would meet all GHG emissions targets through 2035 and overall GHG emissions within the City, including the Master Plan area. Thus, impacts related to project-related GHG emissions would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan implements and is consistent with the City's General ~ Future development and improvement projects occurring pursuant to the Master Plan would be required to be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies aimed at reducing citywide GHG emissions, as well as goals, policies, and actions provided in the City's CAP. The goals and policies related to sustainability and multi-modal transportation objectives within the Master Plan, General Plan, and CAP complement the SAN DAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), which serves as the regional implementation strategy for carrying out SB 375, California's state planning priorities (AB 857 adopted in 2002), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and regional April 2018 -42-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 GHG targets. The CAP demonstrates that, with implementation of applicable General Plan goals and policies, coupled with state and federal actions, and execution of CAP measures and actions, the city will reduce GHG emissions in alignment with state goals established by Assembly Bill 32 and Senate 8111 32, and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 state target identified in Executive Order S-3-05. As described in response Vll(a) above, the Master Plan is consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies, and includes an overall vision and standards and guidelines that are consistent with the adopted CAP. Therefore, future development projects and improvements within the Master Plan area, by nature, would result in reduced VMT and associated GHG emissions, which achieve the overarching goals of local, regional, and state plans to reduce GHG emissions. As such, the proposed Master Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Less than MATERIALS PotentiaUy Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine D D IZl D transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions D D IZl D involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazatdous or acutely hazardous materials, D D IZl D substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section D D IZl D 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public D D D ~ use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f} For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety D D D IZl hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency D D IZl D response plan or emergency evacuation plan? April 2018 -43-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Less than MATERIALS Potentially Significant w ith Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent D D ~ D to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with Wildlahds? a) Less than Significant Impact. Future development pursuant to the Master Plan could result in hazards to people or the environment resulting from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during constn-1ction and operation. During construction of future development, hazardous substances used to maintain and operate construction equipment (e.g., fuel, lubricants, adhesives, solvents, and asphalt) would be present in the Master Plan area. The use or generation of such construction-related hazardous materials could potentially result in significant impacts through accidental discharge associated w1th use, storage, operation, and maintenance activities. The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. In addition, proposed development within the Master Plan area would be required to obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires that SWPPPs are implemented to address the discharge of contaminants (including construction-related hazardous materials) and implementation of appropriate BMPs. While specific BMPs would be determined during the SWPPP process based on project-specific characteristics (e.g., equipment types, etc.), they would include standard industry measures and guidelines contained in the NPDES Construction General Permit text. Based on implementation of appropriate BMPs to provide conformance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, potential impacts associated with construction-related hazardous materials would be less than significant. Non-construction related use of hazardous materials within the Village and Barrio neighborhoods would typically be associated with light industrial, retail/office, commercial, residential, medical, and recreational uses. New development could include land uses that require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. The increase in local population and employment could result in the increased use of hazardous household, commercial, and industrial materials, as well as a cumulative increase in exposure to risk associated with accidental re lease of hazardous materials into the environment. As noted above, federal and state regulations require adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials, which include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations Titles 22 and 27, Senate Bill 1889, and the Consolidated Fire Code. The City would continue to maintain permitting requirements, as administered by the County of San Diego's Department of Environmental Health requirements, for all land uses that handle, store, or generate hazardous waste. Disclosure laws would be enforced by the City to identify business users and the materials they handle to facilitate notification of appropriate agencies in the event of a violation. Implementation of the appropriate federal, state, and local regulations and policies, in combination with the City's ongoing public education and risk identification efforts, would ensure that safe conditions are maintained within the Master Plan area. Thus, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. April 2018 -44-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16·01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 b) Less than Significant Impact. As described in VIII.a, above, future development pursuant to the Master Plan would involve the use, transportation, disposal, and storage of hazardous materials that could result in upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Future development could occur within sites that have been previously contaminated by hazardous substances. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division is the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for San Diego County and is required to implement the unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management and regulatory program for the county with the help of other local agencies such as the City. The risk of upset and accident conditions would be managed and reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of CUPA programs, as well as conformance with other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. c) less than Significant Impact. There is one public elementary school and four private schools located within the Master Plan area or within one-quarter mile of the Master Plan area, including the following: • Jefferson Elementary School (located at 3743 Jefferson Street.., south of and adjacent towit-Affi the Master Plan area) • Carlsbad Montessori Center (located at 740 Pine Avenue within the Master Plan area) • Casa Montessori de Carlsbad (located at 3470 Madison Street within the Master Plan area) • Carlsbad Army and Navy Academy (located at 2605 Carlsbad Boulevard within the Master Plan area) • St. Patrick's Catholic School (located at 3820 Pio Pico Drive, approximately 0.1 mile west of the Master Plan area) No new schools are recommended as part of the Master Plan, nor are changes to existing land uses proposed such that the potential for hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within the vicinity of these schools would substantially i.ncrease. While future development pursuant to the Master Plan would involve the use, transportation, disposal, and storage of hazardous materials that could result in emissions and/or handling of hazardous materials within the vicinity of the schools, these conditions would be managed and reduced to less than significant levels through conformance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, described in VIII.a and Vlll.b, above. d} Less than Significant Impact. As described in Chapter 3.6, Hazardous Materials, Airport Safety, and Wildfires of the General Plan EIR, there are several sites within the Master Plan area that are included on one or more of the lists of hazardous mater.ial sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or that need further investigation. The primary reason for listing is soil and groundwater contamination; redevelopment within these areas could potentially pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment should contaminants be encountered. Future development within the Master Plan area would be subject to General Plan Policy 6-P.23, which requires regulation of development on sites with known soil and groundwater contamination to ensure the safety of construction personnel, future occupants, and the environment. Per General Plan Policy 6-P.24, hazardous materials emergency incident response and coordination with applicable agencies, would be required for new development projects. Therefore, potential hazards to the public or environment due to the location of Master Plan area future development on hazardous materials sites would be less than significant. e) No Impact. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately 3.2 miles southeast of the Master Plan area. The Village and Barrio neighborhoods are not located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Airport Safety Zones, Avigation Easement Areas, or the Airport Overflight Notification Area for April 2018 -45-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 the McClellan-Palomar Airport, nor would the Master Plan result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. Thus, no impact would occur. f) No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the Master Plan area. Therefore, the Master Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. No impact would occur. g) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Master Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City's adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City has adopted the Carlsbad Emergency Operations Plan, which addresses the City's planned response to ernergency situations. While new development and population growth within the Master Plan area would result in an increase in demand for emergency services, which could affect emergency plan implernentation, the City has plans in place to address ernergency situations such that emergency-related impacts would be less than significant. h) Less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of future projects within the Master Plan area are not likely to expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving wild land fires, as the area is primarily developed and the risk for wildland fires to occur is low. Therefore, impacts related to wild land fires would be less than significant. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste D D [2'J D discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with grour;,d water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the D D [2'J D production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or D D lX1 D river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate D D [2'J D or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? April 2018 -46-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 IX . HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or D D l'2:l D provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water D D l'2:l D qualfty? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard D D D ~ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect D D D ~ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving D D D ~ flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D ~ D a) Less than Significant Impact. Future development and improvements proposed within the Master Plan area have the potential to result in water quality and waste discharge requirement violations. All projects implemented under the proposed Master Plan would be required by law to comply with all federal1 state1 and local water quality regulations. Applicable regulations include, but are not limited to, the federal Clean Water Act, Division 7 of the California Water Code (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act), specific basin plan objectives identified in the fiWater Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin" (WQCP), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Permit (MS4 Permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board {RWQCB), the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan {SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP), and the Carlsbad Grading and Drainage Ordinance. The San Diego RWQCB is responsible for regulating stormwater discharges and maintaining the quality of water resources within the County, including the Master Plan area. Construction activities, storm drain systems, and point-source discharges associated with individual projects within the Master Plan area would be required to obtain coverage under a NPDES permit, per Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. All projects would be required to meet, at a minimum, standard storm water requirements to reduce the volume of runoff from impervious surfaces and increase the amount of natural filtration of pollutants from on-site stormwater. Standard requirements include the following low impact development {LID) measures identified in General Plan EIR Section 3.8, Hydrology and Flooding/Water Quality: • Drain a portion of impervious areas into pervious areas, if any. • Design and construct pervious areas, if any, to effectively receive and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas, taking into account soil conditions, slope, and other pertinent factors. • Construct a portion of paved areas with low traffic and appr'opriate soil conditions with permeable surfaces. April 2018 -47-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 For each new project that would disturb one or more acres of land, create greater than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, or otherwise pose a threat to stormwater quality, a SWPPP would be required to be prepared pursuant to the requirements in the City's Storm Water Standards Manual and in compliance with the Carlsbad Grading and Drainage Ordinance. The SWPPP would include a program of BMPs to provide stormwater runoff, erosion and sediment control and reduce potential impacts to water quality that may result from construction activities. Typical construction BMPs include the following, as identified in General Plan EIR Section 3.8: • Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term; new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized; and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized. • Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping. • Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided; slopes and crossings are stabilized; and increases in runoff velocity caused by the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels. • Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the project and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents. • Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are detained. Non-point source surface water from impervious surfaces within the Master Plan area may contain contaminants or increased sediment loads that would increase pollution within the local'storm drain .system. Compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local water quality regulations would ensure that impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Groundwater consists of water within underground aquifers that is recharged from the land surface. The rate of groundwater recharge is affected by the permeability of the ground surface. Changes in the amount of impervious surfaces within the Master Plan area are not anticipated to substantially reduce groundwater recharge since development within the Master Plan area would primarily include redevelopment of existing developed areas. Future development and improvements within the Master Plan area could increase demands for water; however, this increase in water demand is not anticipated to impact local groundwater supplies, since the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), which services the Master Plan area and the majority of the City, does not currently utilize local groundwater or surface water supplies. Consistent with the conclusions identified in General Plan EIR, groundwater impacts relative to implementation of the Master Plan would be less than significant. c-d} Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Master Plan would not involve the direct alteration of the course of a stream, river or other drainage pattern such that substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding would occur. Future development and improvements within the Master Plan area could impact existing drainage and result in hydromodification effects through increases in impervious surfaces and runoff volumes into the local water system. Each future development project would be subject to the April 2018 -48-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 erosion and runoff control provisions contained in the City's SUSMP and Grading and Drainage Ordinances, including the preparation of a SWPPP for all applicable construction activities. Prbjects also would be required to comply with the flood damage and prevention measures in Chapter 21.110 of the City's Municipal Code. These measures would restrict development in areas of special flood hazards (e.g., near waterways/water bodies such as Buena Vista Lagoon) and control erosion, thus serving to limit and control the alteration of existing drainage patterns. Adherence to local regulations would ensure that watercourses and drainage patterns would not be altered in a manner that would significantly increase the rate or amount of runoff or erosion, or result in significant effects related to flooding. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. e-f) less Than Significant Impact. Future development and improvements within the Master Plan area could impact the existing drainage system. Each future development project would be subject to the City's Grading and Drainage Ordinances and Storm Water Standards Manual to ensure compliance with NPDES permit requirements, as well as other applicable federal and state stormwater regulations. As described in IX.a, every construction activity with the potential to negatively affect water quality would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement standard stormwater requirements. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that runoff from future development within the Master Plan area would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems or generate substantial pollutant runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. g-h) No Impact. As depicted in Figure 3.8-1 of the General Plan EIR, the northernmost portion of the Master Plah area, including areas immediately adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon, is located within a 100- year flood hazard area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Implementation of the Master Plan would not place new housing within a 100-year flood hazard area of the Buena Vista Lagoon, nor would it place structures within floodplain areas that would impede or redirect flood flows. The City's Floodplain Management Regulations restrict or prohibit land uses considered unsafe in a floodplain. Future development projects would be reviewed by the City's Land Development Engineering Division for flooding potential and analyzed to ensure that substantial changes to drainage would not occur such that flood flows would be impeded or redirected. No impact would occur. i) No Impact. Dam inundation zones within the City are depicted In Figure 3.8-2 of the General Plan EIR. The Master Plan area is not located within a dam inundation zone. No impact would occur. 1 The city has prepared a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment which evaluated potential sea level rise effects and describes a range of potential adaptation strategies that may be applied. The vulnerability assessment will be used to inform the development of adaptation policies in the comprehensive Local Coastal Program update the city is now preparing. Once adopted, these policies would apply to future projects within the Coastal Zone. j) Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a large wave generated in an enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water, often caused by ground-shaking associated with seismic activity. Potential effects from seiches include flooding damage and related hazards in areas surrounding the water bodies. Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. The primary areas susceptible to tsunamis are those near the ocean and along low-lying river channels. Tsunami risk areas within the City are depicted in Figure 3.8-3 of the General Plan EIR. The high risk areas associated with seiches and tsunami run-up are in the immediate vicinity of the Buena Vista Lagoon, as well as the Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons. Tsunami risk is also high along the coastline. Future development and improvement April 2018 -49-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No; GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 projects within the Master Plan area would be required to comply with the City's regulations pertaining to coastal development (e.g., Municipal Code Chapters 21.110 and 21.204) and conduct appropriate studies to address potential impacts related to flooding effects of tsunamis and/or seiches, as applicable. Thus, impacts due to inundation from a seiche or tsunami would be less than significant. As noted in VI.a.iii, a.iv, and c, the Master Plan area is not located within an area prone to landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. As such, future development pursuant to the Master Plan would not be located within the vicinity of slopes potentially capable of producing mudslides, nor does the Master Plan directly propose housing, structures, or uses that would be subject to significant risk of loss, injury, or death from mudflows. For these reasons, no impacts associated with mudflow would occur. x. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would th,e project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Physically divide an established community? D D D IZJ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, D D IZJ D local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflkt with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community D D D 1:8:1 conservation plan? a} No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not physically divide an established community. The Master Plan strives to improve connectivity between the Village and Barrio and adjacent areas of the City and coast, and a goal of the document is to "establish better connectivity with the Village and Barrio and between the two neighborhoods and their surroundings." New or improved c(;onnections between the beach and the center of the Village and the Barrio are proposed to 13e highlighted and strengthened, where currently there is a poor connection between the beach and coFftmercial areas of the Village, The Master Plan identifies potential options to maximize connectivity among the Village and Barrio and to adjacent neighborhoods, including providing local roadway connections across the railroad tracks for all modes of travel by trenching the tracks in coordination with the double tracking of the rail line. The Master Plan also recommends tunneling under 1-5 to connect Grand Avenue in the Village with the street network on the freeway's east side and ensuring planned Caltrans improvements to freeway interchanges and crossings that serve the Village and Barrio occur. Recommended pedestrian and bicycle enhancements unify the Village and Barrio and promote travel throughout these two neighborhoods. These recommendations would serve to improve access and circulation within the community as opposed to dividing ft and provide a benefitto residents, visitors, and businesses. Thus, no division of an established community would occur. b} less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan provides guidance in interpreting City planning and zoning requirements for properties within the Village and Barrio, as well as specific principles, standards, regulations, and design guidelines that may be applied to proposed improvements within the Master Plan area. These components of the Master Plan have been developed to be consistent with and April 2018 -50-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 complementary to the General Plan, the associated Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and the City's Zoning Code. The consistency with the General Plan is further demonstrated in Table 2 below, which highlights many of the various goals, policies, and other provisions of the General Plan with which the Master Plan complies. The table is not meant to be exhaustive; instead, it provides a consistency analysis over a broad section of General Plan Elements. Future development within the Master Plan area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, as applicable. Based on these considerations, conflicts with applicable plans and regulations would be less than significant. Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency General Plan Provision Provision detail Master Plan Consistency This core value calls for, in part, As indkated in "+Re PlaA" ERa13leF af:tl:le Village revitalization to capitalize Master PlaA aAd s13eeifically ,S_5ection 1.4 ' on its potential as a place to live, of Chapter lA,-, "+iffie ta be a taw~the work, and play. Master Plan establishes a vision for the This core value also calls for Village and Barrio that in part states the Barrio rejuvenation through following: "care, attention, and "Carlsbad's Village and Barrio are investment." vibrant, safe and healthy neighborhoods that: • Serve as the historic heart of the ci!Y, honoring Carlsbad's past and creating a strong sense of community. • Are connected in place and spirit, yet retain their unigue personalit ies. • Embody the principles of smart Community Vision Core Value- growth, with a mix of commercial and residential land uses. a variety Neighborhood Revitalization/Community Design, of housing choices, walkable neighborhoods and multiple and Livability transportation options. • Attract high guality, sustainable development that enhances vitality and local character." The Master Plan implements the vision through goals and QOlicies, standards and guidelines, and an implementation Q@D_,_ +Re Pia A iAEl~des a Ad flFS,.•ides a '<'isieA ,rnd staAsaFels te Feestal=llisl:l a tFl:le village eaAsistiAg sf l=latR tl:le BaFFie aAd tRe Village as SAC f)laAAiAg aFea witR twa eeFes a 99WAt8WA E9ffiffiCFEial eaFe aAd a EeAtFal BaFFia, flFiffiaFil',' FesieleAtial E9FC. +Re MasteF Pia A eaAtaiAs al=ljeeti,.•es sf EFeat-iAg gFeat sa=eets, magAetie fll:ll=llie Sflaees, ma1dffiii!ed eaAAeefr.,it•r, im13Fa'res 1,t,<allEaeifit;• all iA a ffiaAAeF ~Rat seek5 April 2018 -51-Initial Study General Plan Provision Land Use Element ' April 2018 Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16~01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency Provision detail Master Plan Consistency ts 13FsteEt aAe eAl:laREe tl:ie aFea's ERaFaeteF as grewtcl:l SEEl:IFS. Table 2-3 specifies residential Master Plan densities match those densities. identified in the table. Table 2-3 identifies intensity A FAR of 1.2 applies to properties with a standards expressed as floor area land use designation of "Village." This ratio, or FAR. standard applies to the designation as a whole, not as a development standard applicable to each property. "Village" properties have a range of low and high intensities due to the mix of commercial and residential uses and many older, single-and two-story buildings. Master Plan developments that may exceed the FAR would likely promote land use efficiency, a diversity of uses, and a pedestrian ·orientation, which are other objectives of the Master Plan. Policy 2-P.69 states, "the Village The Master Plan replaces the existing Master Plan and Design Manual is Village Master Plan and Design Manual the guide for land use planning in a manner consistent with the General and design in the Village. Plan. Comprehensively update the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan." Policy 2-P.75 states, "address The key recommendations and parking demand by finding strategies of the 2017 Parking additional areas to provide Management Plan, gregared for the parking for the Village and beach Village, Barrio, and adjacent beach area, areas, and by developing creative are incorgorated into the Master Plan parking management strategies, for lmglementation. They address items such as shared parking, maximum such as 1:1arking time limits, garking parking standards, "smart" enforcement and ambassadors, shared metering, utilizing on-street and leased garking, and "curb lane parking for re-use of existing management.'' or the efficient use of the buildings, etc." street right-of-way for garking, bus and loading zones, bicy:cle facilities, etc. Providing additional gublic garking, whether through shared use of existing garking lots or devefoi::1ment of new garking in the railroad right-of-way, is also a comgonent of the Master Plan. A Ms13ilit•,• PlaR is a IEe11• ESfl'lf3SAeAt et: tl:le MasteF PlaA, !3FS'fieiAg SRSF~ aAel lsAg teFm stFategie.s te aeEIFess mel3ili~ iR tl:le Village aRe BaFFie iR all foFms, iAEh::1EllAg mel3ilit•r 13y a1:1tsmel3ile aREl tl:le Fes"'ltiRg Rees fuF l:)aFIEiRg. +l:lese -52-Initial Study General Plan Provision Mobility Element April 2018 Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14·01/MCA 16-01 Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency Provision detail Master Plan Consistency stFategies eall feF eRee1:1FagiAg sAaFeel f;)aFIEiAg, a,elEliAg SA stFeet f:18FIEiAg, iAEl1:1eliAg iFl Hie-eeaER aFea, aAel l:ISiAg :l:eel:!Aelegy te, fe~ ellam13le, iEl€fl-t.i.t¥ a•.iaHal:lle 13aFkiAg. +Re Mel:lility PlaA alse FeeemmeAels feFmatieR ef a 9ewAteWA Mel:lility GemmissieA te eYeFsee 13aFk!Ag mattei:s, s1::1el:! as tAe f:1~ im13lemeAtatieR ef time FestFieteEl eF mete-Feel 13aFkiRg. MasteF PlaR aeYele13meAt staAelaFels allew elEistiAg EleYele13meAt IA same +FaAseet 9istFiets ta ee1::1Rt aEljaeeAt eA stFeet 13aFkiRg. Policy 2-P. 78 states {for the Master Plan recommendations focus on Barrio), "focus revitalization Barrio streetscape improvements efforts on renovations and fa~ade through traffic calming, street trees and improvements as well as pedestrian lighting, and bicycle facilities. enhancing the physical The Plan maintains existing Barrio land infrastructure of the community." use 1;1atterns and densities. Further, a Master Plan goal, as stated in Cha1;1ter 1, Section 1.5.1, is to 1;1romote the rehabilitation and adaQtive re-use of existing Barrio buildingsael,.•eeates foF Rew BaFFie stFeet eaAReetiaAs aRel eAhaAeemeAts tl:lat ee1:1lel ee fealiiea with i=ailrnaEl tFaek tFeReAif\g aAEl I S •.i.•iEleRiAg. +Re Pia A s1:1ggests sl=teFt teFm 13Fajeets 'l:a eea1:1tifv BaFFie alle•;s aAel eReel:lFage Aeigl:leeFl:leeEl eleaA 1:113, s1:1eR as a Barrie "Reek the Bleek" tFash piel,1::1p aaif. Goal 3-G.2 states, "improve The Master Plan advocates improved connectivity for residents, visitors connectivity between the Village and and businesses." Barrio through recommendations for street trees, better alleys, improved Goal 3-G.3 states, "provide street lighting and wider sidewalks for inviting streetscapes that pedestrians, traffic calming, and encourage walking and promote improved bicycle facilities. Master Plan livable streets.'' development standards also encourage buildings to have a pedestrian orientation. Further, the Master Plan advocates for street connections that could be realized through trenching of the railroad tracks; this would .improve connections between the planning area and neighborhoods to the west, and vice versa. The plan recommends the city pursue Caltrans enhancements to 1-5 undercrossings as part of the North Coast Corridor project that would -53-Initial Study General Plan Provision Arts, History, Culture, and Education Element April 2018 Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency Provision detail Master Plan Consistency improve connections between the Village and Barrio and neighborhoods to the east. In addition, the plan improves connectivity through a number of recommended community gathering spaces, such as the Grand Avenue Promenade, and improvements at and near the intersection of Roosevelt Street and Walnut Avenue in the Barrio. Finally, the plan recommends the extension of Grand Avenue underneath 1-5 as a further way to connect the plan area with adjacent parts of Carlsbad. Policy 3-P.15 states, "Evaluate The Master Plan makes many methods and transportation recommendations regarding facility improvements to improvements to streets throughout the promote biking, walking, safer Village and Barrio, thereby enhancing street crossings, and attractive accessibility by all modes of travel. streetscapes. The City Council Master PlaR Appenelil( I, Transportation shall have the sole discretion to Chapter 4, Mobilitl'. and Beautificatioh, approve any such road diet or includes numerous street sections, vehicle traffic calming intersection improvement details, and a improvements that would reduce bicJ'.cle network plan detailing how these vehicle capacity to or below a improvements could occur, However, LOS D; this also applies to streets the Master Plan goal and policies where the vehicle is not subject expressed in Section 1.5.2 clearly states to the MM LOS standard as implementation of significant public specified in Table 3-1." improvements are to be publiclJ'. and adeguatelJ'. evaluated~reet plans ,,..,01:1{el ~e s1:1ajeet to furtl:ler re'oliew anel appro•.•al aRel eonsielereel in ligRt of tl:lis !;)artie1:1lar Gene~al 12Ian 13oliey. Historic Resources Goal 7-G.1 The Master Plan identifies historic states, "recognize protect, preservation as an important element; preserve, and enhance the city's the Master Plan recommends eRRancing diverse heritage." historie feat1:1res, implementing a program to encourage volunta!Y rehabilitation and (;!reservation of gualified historic resources s1:1ei:½ as tl:le gre1:1n€1s arot1R€1 tl:le :i:win IRAS 131:1ileliAg, and identifying notable buildings with informational markers. Arts and Culture Goal 7-G.3 The Master Plan notes the significance states, in part, "integrate the arts, public art plays in place-making; the public art and art education as a Master Plan describes different types of vital aspect of community life, public art and encourages its with a wide range of facilities ahd incorporation into the Village and Barrio public programs designed to streetscape and public places. The engage the city's diverse Master Plan includes recommendations and standards for new public spaces, -54-Initial Study I t Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Table 2 -Demonstration of General Plan Consistency General Plan Provision Provision detail Master Plan Consistency audiences as active participants that could serve as locations for art and patrons/ 1;1rograms, such as the Grand Avenue Promenade. Goal 9 states, "promote energy The Master Plan promotes compact, efficiency and conservation in the urban growth in a walkable community." environment. This is accomplished through recommendations, standards, Sustainability Element and strategies encour-aging efficient use of land and buildings, streets and parking, buildings with a pedestrian- orientation, and mobility improvements that benefit all forms of access in the Village and Barrio. Goal 10-G.2 (Housing The Master Plan is consistent with Opportunities) states, "new General Plan densities specified for the housing developed with diversity Village and Barrio. These densities of types, prices, tenures, permit a variety of housing types at densities, and locations, and in densities from 8 to 30-35 units/acre. sufficient quantity to meet the Housing Element demand of anticipated city and regional growth." Policy 10-P.13 (Housing Master Plan development standards Opportunities) states, "encourage permit mixed use development in many increased integration of housing :ffaF1sect Q&istricts iA tl=le Village a Rd with nonresidential development -Baffie. +l=lese s~aAdaFds also 13eFfflit a where appropriate." 13aFIEiAg Fed1:1ctioR fur FRiJEed l:fSe Ele't1elo1:3ffleAt c) No Impact. The proposed Master Plan is intended to implement the City's General Plan and future development within the Master Plan area would be required to be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies designed to protect the environment. In addition, Mitigation Measure 810-1 would require future development in the northern portion of the Master Plan area to be consistent with the City's HMP. Thus, impacts on applicable plans and policies intended to protect the environment would not occur. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Less than less than Significaht Sighlficant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future D D D ~ value to the region and the residents of the State? b} Result in the loss of availability ofa locally important mineral resource recovery site D D D ~ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a~b) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not re sult in significant impacts to known mineral resources. No mineral resources of economic'>'ah,ie l=la\'e been identified witl=lin the Master April 2018 -55-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Plan area of the City. Carlsbad has not been delineated as a locally important mineral reco'.•ery site. Carlsbad is devoid of any non-renewable energy resources of economic value to the region and the residents of the State. Mineral reso urces within the city are no longe r being utilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts would occur as a result of any project proposed within the Master Plan area. XII. NOISE Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise D [8J D D ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-D D ~ D borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase ii') ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above D D [8J D levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity D D [8J D above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or D D D ~ public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people D D D [8J residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. There are two primary sources of noise within the Master Plan area: noise generated by stationary noise sources (e.g., parks, schools, and industrial and commercial uses) and noise generated by mobile sources (i.e., traffic and rail). Noise levels from stationary noise sources are typically highly localized, and may vary depending on the time of day, type of activity being performed, and other factors. Mobile noise sources include vehicula.r traffic on freeways and local streets, which is dependent on vehicle speed, volume, flow, percentage of vehicle types, and other factors, as well as rail activities such as freight trains. Development within the Master Plan area would be subject to several local regulations pertaining to noise, including the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, CMC, and General Plan Noise Standards. The City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual is primarily intended to address community noise issues related to land use. The Noise Guidelines Manual does not address noise issues such as animal noise, noise from parties and loud gatherings, motor vehicle noise or general nuisance noise. CMC Chapter 8.48 outlines regulations for limitation of hours for construction (i.e., the erection, demolition, alteration, or repair of any building or structure or the grading or excavation of land) that creates disturbing, excessive, April 2018 -56-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 or offensive noise. Construction can occur Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; no work shall be conducted on Sundays and any federal holiday. CMC Chapter 8.48 also outlines exceptions that may be granted by the City for circumstances such as emergency repairs required to protect the health and safety of the community. Other CMC sections that regulate noise levels include Section 8.09.110, which outlines guidelines for conducting sound and noise measurements of entertainment establishments; Section 21.34.090, which specifies the maximum allowable exterior noise level of industrial uses; Section 21.31.080, Development Standards, which regulates noise levels in the loading areas and docks of shopping centers; and Section 21.41.030, which states that no signs in the City shall make noise. Other noise restrictions can be found in the CMC including conditfons regarding noise that may be added for uses subject to minor conditional use permits and conditional use permits (CMC Chapter 21.42). The General Plan includes several standards for noise, including community noise exposure criteria to evaluate land use compatibility based on noise emanating from all sources {Table 3.10.2 of the General Plan EIR), as well as acceptable limits of noise for various land uses for both exterior and interior environments from transportation noise sources. Table 3.10-2 of the General Plan EIR establishes standards to guide the location of specific uses in noise-prone environments, while Table 3.10-3 provides standards that development shall attain through noise attenuation measures. Policies 5-P.1 and 5-P.2 identify acceptable noise levels for various noise sensitive land uses and require a noise analysis with appropriate noise attenuation for development in areas where the noise level may exceed the level considered acceptable by the General Plan. Stationary noise associated with future development would be subject to the General Plan Noise Element Land Use and Noise Compatibility Policies; implementation of project design techniques to reduce the effects of stationary noise sources on adjacent noise sensitive land uses (e.g., increased setbacks, placement of mechanical equipment, use of non-sensitive buildings such as garages to shield noise-sensitive uses, etc.) would be encouraged. The Master Plan development standards and design guidelines consider noise effects relative to site planning and the placement of land uses within close proximity to existing and proposed noise sensitive uses. Noise-sensitive land uses are those t hat may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, and include residences, hotels/lodging, churches, educational facilities, playgrounds/ parks, and libraries. For areas such as the ~Barrio Perimeter District, which is located adjacent to 1-5 and portions ofTarnarack /1.1.ienue and the railroad corridor, the Master Plan stipulates that buildings should be carefully positioned along 1-5 in order to reduce noise effects to inhabitants. The Master Plan development standards and design guidelines also address the placement of mechanical equipment and service areas, and encourages that they be screened and placed away from adjacent residential uses to avoid creating a nuisance. "Good Neighbor" policies include placement of noise-generating equipment (e.g •• refrigeration units, air conditioning equipment. and exhaust fans) away from residential uses and use of noise-reducing screens or insulation (Master Plan Section 2.6.4). Within the Village Center District. loading docks. service areas. repair yards, and noise and odor generating operations, and ground- mounted mechanical equipment are not permitted within 20 feet of shared property lines (Master Plan Section 2.7.1). outdoor dining areas, and pedestrian areas when possible. Based on these considerations, stationary noise impacts would be less than significant. While implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not directly result in new development within the Village and Barrio neighborhoods, it would allow additional development that would generate noise during construction. Future development and improvement projects would be required to comply with the Noise Guidelines Manual, Noise Ordinance (CMC Chapter 8.48), and General Plan Noise Element goals April 2018 -57-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 and policies to reduce construction noise levels, including limits on the days and hours of construction activities. Thus, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Long-term transportation (mobile) noise levels could exceed the City1s standards forfuture noise-sensitive receptors. As illustrated in Figure 5-2 of the General Plan, transportation noise levels associated with Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Boulevard, and 1-5 as well as the rail corridor would generate noise levels which would exceed acceptable levels for many of the land uses expected to occur within the Master Plah. Noise sensitive uses without appropriate noise attenuation would be impacted by transportation noise. In accordance with Policies 5-P.1 and 5.P.2 of the General Plan, the following mitigation measure shall apply to future projects within the Master Plan, as applicable. Mitigation Measure NOl-1: A noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and noise attenuation measures identified in the analysis shall be incorporated. The noise analysis shall include the following: • Representative, on-site day and night sound level measurement; • Delineation of current (measured) and projected (General Plan or 10 years in future, whichever horizon extends further out) noise contours; • Identify noise levels-with ahd without the proposed project, ranging from 55 to 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) (day-night averaged sound level [LoN]) within the proposed development site; and • If noise levels exceed the standards in Table 5-1 of the General Plan, include a description of noise abatement measures to mitigate the noise to allowable levels for the proposed use. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOl-1, transportation noise impacts on noise sensitive uses within the Master Plan would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Ground-borne vibration sources within the Master Plan area are associated with construction, industrial operations, and transportation (roads and rail). The General Plan EIR in Section 3.10 concluded that ground-borne vibration would not have a significant impact on future development. The General Plan EIR indicated that Caltrans had studied the effects of vibration from heavy vehicles traveling on roadways and trains on nearby sensitive land uses. In their studies, Caltrans noted that heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest ground-borne vibrations of normal traffic. Caltrans further noted that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along the freeways. Vibration measured on freeway shoulders (5 meters or 16 feet from the centerline of the nearest lane) never exceeded 0.08 inches/second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV). This level coincides with the maximum recommended "safe level" for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings). Similarly, Caltrans found that the 0.08 in/sec PPV level for vibration from trains occurs at a distance of 25 feet from the rails. Because sensitive land uses were not anticipated to be sited within these distances, the General Plan EIR concluded that ground,borne vibration impacts from roads or rail sources would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR also concluded that blasting or pile driving were the primary sources of ground- borne vibration related to construction. Heavy construction machinery, such as bulldozers, heavy trucks, April 2018 -58-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 etc., typically produces negligible levels of ground-borne vibration beyond a distance of 25 feet (City 2015). Construction within the Village and Barrio neighborhoods is not anticipated to require blasting or pile driving. Thus, construction activities would not be expected to generate significant ground-borne vibration. The use of heavy equipment associated with certain commercial and light industrial operations can result in elevated vibration levels. Per the General Plan EIR Section 3.10, equipment known to cause heavy vibration would be situated at a distance of 25 feet or more from sensitive land uses. Furthermore, land uses in the Village and Barrio and as proposed in the Master Plan are predominantly residential, office, lodging, retail, and service commercial in nature. Thus, ground-borne vibration related to certain commercial and light industrial uses would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. Future development pursuant to the Master Plan could increase ambient noise levels over current levels. The increase would be related to additional traffic on local roads as well as stationary sources associated with future development. Increases in local traffic would not be expected to substantially increase traffic noise along local roadways and existing land use patterns and land uses would not change significantly under the Master Plan. Thus, increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in XII.a and Xll.c, above, new development proposed pursuant to the Master Plan is expected to generate construction noise effects above existing ambient levels. However, compliance with the Noise Guidelines Manual, Noise Ordinance {CMC Chapter 8.48), General Plan Noise Element goals and policies, and Master Plan development standards and design guidelines would reduce potential short-term noise impacts to less than significant. e) No Impact. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately 3.2 miles southeast of the Master Plan area. The Village and Barrio neighborhoods are not located within the ALUCP Airport Safety Zones, Avigation Easement Areas, or the Airport Overflight Notification Area for t he McClellan-Palomar Airport, nor would the Master Plan result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. Thus, no impact would occur. /) No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the Master Plan area. Therefore, the Master Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. Thus, no impact would occur. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for D D ~ D example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of D D rgJ D replacement housing elsewhere? April 2018 -59-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project; Impact Incorporated Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of D D C8J D replacement housing elsewhere? a) Less than Significant Impact. As stated in the Master Plan, the projected population growth in the City, along with the desirability of the Village and Barrio, are anticipated to create demand for new housing in the Village and Barrio. The Master Plan maintains already established density ranges in the Village and Barrio and calls for the provision of a mix of units and housing types to meet density needs, 1.vith an emphasis on pro,.,iding homes for all income groups. Development of new housing within the Village and Barrio would not induce growth, but rather accommodate the needs of existing and future residents anticipated in the General Plan, consistent with the General Plan Housing Element goals and policies. Short-term, construction-related jobs would be generated during construction of future development and improvements. It is assumed that these jobs would come primarily from the local labor pool. Jobs generated by operation of future businesses would be consistent with the job growth analyzed in the General Plan. The Master Plan area is served by existing streets, utility infrastructure, and service systems; upgrades and retrofits to existing infrastructure would not induce growth, since the Master Plan would not extend services or infrastructure to new areas or allow for the development of land that previously could not be developed due to service constraints. Thus, the Master Plan would not induce substantial population growth and impacts would be less than significant. b-c) less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan indicates that redevelopment could occur throughout the Barrio and Village, meaning that existing homes or buildings could be acquired in order to build larger apartment or condominium buildings, as well as residences in a mixed use format. New construction could provide a greater concentration of residential units in response to the demand for ownership and rental housing in a compact, walkable area and at densities consistent with the General Plan. Although some existing homes may be removed, this would not constitute substantial displacement of existing homes or people, especially since it is anticipated that most of these homes would be replaced with housing at similar or greater densities, increasing the overall housing stock within the Village and Barrio. Thus, the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing and people is not anticipated, and impacts would be less than significant. April 2018 -60-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physicaily altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? D D l:8l D ii. Police protection? D D l:8l D iii. Schools? D D l:8l D Iv. Parks? D D l:8l D v. Ot her public facilities? D D l:8l D a.i) less than Significant Impact. The Carlsbad Fire Department provides fire and emergency services within the City and Master Plan area, serving an approximately 39-square-mile area. The closest station to the Master Plan area is Fire Station 1, located at 1275 Carlsbad Village Drive, just east of 1-5. Fire Station 1 services the northwest portion of the City and operates with a five-person crew with one fire engine and a paramedic ambulance. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan provided as part of the City's Growth Management Plan establishes a performance standard for response times, requiring that no more than 1,500 dwelling units are located outside of a five-minute response time, and uses a benchmark of six minutes for the first unit on the scene and nine minutes for the second. As stated in General Plan ElR Section 3.11, Public Facilities and Services, the Fire Department achieved the benchmark in 63 percent of cases for the first unit on the scene, and 75 percent of cases for the second unit on the scene in fiscal year 2012 through 2013. Future development proposed within the Master Plan area would be located in an urbanized area with relatively low fire hazard severity. New development would be subject to the City's policies and codes for hazard mitigation and fire prevention {including General Plan Goals 2-G.21, 2-G.22, and 6-G.4, and Policies 2-P.58, 2-P.60, 2-P.61, 6-P.28, 6-P.29, 6-P.31, 6-P.32, 6-P.33, and 6-P.34), as well as plan review by the City's Fire Prevention Division. New development would occur within the vicinity of the existing Fire Station 1, where average response time benchmarks are being met. Therefore, new locations for fire services would not be necessary. Upgrades to existing stations may be required in order to meet service demands but would not likely cause substantial adverse physical impacts as they would be subject to the City's building and construction codes that minimize environmental impacts of new development. Thus, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant. a.ii) less than Significant Impact. The Carlsbad Police Department provides police services within the City and Master Plan area. Future development within the Master Plan area would primarily occur in infill areas of the Village and Barrio neighborhoods. These areas are currently served by police services and infill development proposed within the Master Plan area would continue to be adequately served. Meeting facilities needs for an expanded Police Department to serve the growing population would not April 2018 -61.-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 necessarily require new construction or physically altering an existing facility. Physical planning and community design practices encouraged in the General Plan (Goals 2-G.21, 2-G.221 and 6-G.4, and Policies 2-P.58, 2-P.60, 6-P.30, and 6-P.32} would be implemented for future development within the Master Plan area, to ensure that impacts related to police services are addressed and/or reduced. Thus, impacts on police services would be less than significant. a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan area is served by Carlsbad Unified School District, which encompasses nine elementary, three middle, and two high schools within the City. One elementary school, Jefferson Elementary School (located at 3743 Jefferson Street} is located within adjacent to the Master Plan area and serves the residents of the Village and Barrio. In addition to the City public school, several private schools also are located within or near the Master Plan area that serve local residents, ihcluding the Army and Navy Academy, St Patrick's Catholic School, and two Montessori schools. The Citywide Facllities and Improvements Plan requires that school capacity meet projected enrollment as determined by the school district prior to projected occupancy of residential development. According to the analysis provided in General Plan EIR Section 3.11, existing public school facilities are expected to provide adequate capacity for buildout of the General Plan, including the Master Plan area. Furthermore, new development would be required to pay school fees in accordance with State law. Thus, impacts related to the provision of new schools would be less than significant. a.iv) Less than Significant Impact. Several existing parks and recreational facilities are located within the Master Plan area. There are two community parks: Pine Avenue Park {7.7 acres, located at 3333 Harding Street} and Magee House and Park (2.1 acres, located at 258 Beech Avenue}. Pine Avenue Park is located in the Barrio neighborhood adjacent to Chase Field and the Carlsbad Senior Center. Other parks and facilities within the area include the Harding Community Center {located at 3096 Harding Street}, tRe Jefferson elementary School Field (locateel at 3743 Jefferson Street), and Maxton Brown Park (1 acre, located at corner of Laguna Drive and State Street near Buena Vista Lagoon}. Other passive recreational opportunities are available within smaller green spaces within the Master Plan area, including Rotary Park located at the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishes a performance standard for parks, requiring 3.0 acres of park land per 1,000 people. The Master Plan recommends that more small green. civic or "shared" public spaces be provided within the Village and Barrio; however, no new community parks or special use areas are proposed as part of the Master Plan. Development of parkland proposed within the City is anticipated to result in an additional 443.9 acres of parkland and a surplus within the City. Therefore, provision of parkland under the General Plan would meet the standard of accommodating future residents. In addition, new development within the Master Plan area would be required to pay development impact fees which would generate funds to help pay for additional park and recreation facilities. Thus, impacts on parks and recreation from future development within the Master Plan area would be less than significant. a.v) Less than Significant Impact. Two of the three City libraries are located within the vicinity of the Master Plan area: Georgina Cole Library (located at 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive) and Carlsbad City Library Learning Center (located at 3368 Eureka Place}. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishes a performance standard for library space equal to 800 square feet per 1,000 people. As stated in General Plan EIR Section 3.11, the existing library space within the three City libraries currently meets the City's standard; however, buildout of the General Plan would require an additional 5,177 square feet of library facility space. The provision of new library space is anticipated to be required over time as population within the City increases. While future development within the Master Plan area would contribute to the future need for additional library space, new development within the Master Plan area would be required April 2018 -62-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 to pay development impact fees which would generate funds to help pay for additional library space. Therefore, impacts to library facilities would be less than significant. xv. RECREATION Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that D D ~ D substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which D D D ~ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Less than Significant Impact. Refer to XIV.a.iv, above. b) No Impact. As stated in XIV.a.iv, above, while the Master Plan recommends that more passive recreation spaces be provided within the Village and Barrio, no new community parks or special use areas are proposed as part of the Master Plan. Thus, no physical changes from the expansion of existing, or development of new, recreation facilities would occur. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and D D ~ D non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards D D D 0 established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or D D D 0 a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? April 2018 -63-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 XVI. TRANSPORTAllON/TRAFFIC Potentially Less than Less than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or D D D rZI dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D rZI f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or D D 1:8] D pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a) Less than Significant Impact. The City's General Plan Mobility Element focuses on providing "livable streets" to improve mobility and connectivity for all users of the transportation system. The livable streets concept recognizes that each street within the city is unique given its geographic setting, adjacent land uses, and the desired use of that facility. As such, this elernent establishes a street typology appropriate for the uniqueness of the street and surrounding land uses and identifies which modes of travel (e.g., vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, transit) are accommodated on that street. Mobility Element Table 3-1 describes the city's livable street typologies and Figure 3-1 depicts the city's livable street system. According to the street typology system, the primary function of Village and Barrio streets generally is to move people throughout the area, providing access to businesses, residents, transit, and recreation. Streets are to be designed to safely accommodate all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians, and for transit users within one-half mile of the Carlsbad Village Transit Center. The General Plan Mobility Element utilizes a Multi-modal Level of Service (MM LOS) technique to evaluate the ability of the roadways to accommodate all modes of transportation. Policy 3-P.4 establishes a minimum level of service Dor better for each mode of travel for which the MM LOS standard is applicable to each street type, as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 of the General Plan. General Plan street typologies within the Master Plan area consist of "Identity Streets," "Village Streets", "Neighborhood Connector Streets", "Local/Neighborhood Streets'', and "School Streets". Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive are Identity Streets. The majority of remaining streets in the Village and Barrio are designated as Village Streets or Local/Neighborhood Streets. Near Jefferson Elementary School and within the Master Plan area, a portion of Jefferson Street, Anchor lllay, and Hibism:1s Circle are is a School Streets. At the southern border of the Master Plan area at the railroad corridor, Tamarack Avenue is a Neighborhood Connector Street. For all streets within the Master Plan area, the MMLOS standard applies to the pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel. Levels of service for travelling by bicycle or foot are based on an evaluation of the quality, friendliness, and (for bicycles) the amenities of facilities. For streets within one-half mile of the Carlsbad Village Transit Center, the MMLOS standard applies to transit-Transit levels of service are based on hours and frequency of service, amenities, and safety, among others. General Plan EIR Section 3.13 includes an analysis of transportation conditions at buildout of the land uses included in the General Plan using MMLOS. Overall, the General Plan EIR concluded that the impacts of future development within the City would exceed the capacity of certain roadways for certain modes of travel. The ElR concluded that significant vehicular impacts would occur on specific segments of the following roadways: Palomar Airport Road, La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. It also identified April 2018 -64-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 significant impacts on 1-5 and SR-78. In evaluating the ability of roadways to accommodate pedestrians, the General Plan EIR found that Carlsbad Boulevard between La Costa Avenue and Tamarack Avenue does not currently provide an acceptable MMLOS for pedestrian transportation. On streets evaluated for bicycle MMLOS, one segment of Carlsbad Boulevard (between Poinsettia Avenue and Palomar Airport Road), does not currently provide acceptable level of service. The General Plan EIR concluded, however, that implementation of General Plan policies would improve infrastructure in these areas such that impacts to pedestrian and bicycle levels of service would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR determined that all streets evaluated for transit would be able to meet the transit MM LOS standard at buildout under the General Plan. Although the General Plan included a number of goals and policies designed to accommodate all forms of transportation within the City, the EIR determined that these goals and policies, together with implementation of feasible mitigation measures, would not be sufficient to reduce all of the anticipated transportation impacts to below a level of significance. Thus, the EIR concluded that transportation impacts associated with buildout under the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable. As the Master Plan would not change the underlying General Plan land use designations, future development pursuant to the proposed Master Plan would not increase the four forms of transportation beyond that assumed in the traffic analysis included in the General Plan EIR. Nevertheless, future development within the Master Plan area would contribute to the inadequate LOS anticipated on city roadways. Vehicular trips generated by future development within the Master Plan would, to varying degrees, contribute to the inadequate· LOS projected for Palomar Airport Road, La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real as well as 1-5 and SR-78. While development under the Master Plan would contribute vehicular trips, the emphasis plac~d on encouraging pedestrian and bicycle forms of transportation within the Master Plan area would be expected to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by future development by providing viable options to the private automobile within the Master Plan area. As stated in Chapter 5 of the General Plan EIR, traffic impacts identified in the EIR are considered cumulative in nature because the analysis is projected to the year 2035 and includes regional growth. As a result, the impact of the Master Plan on traffic need not be considered significant. Section 15152(f)(1) of CEQA Guidelines states ... "Where a Lead Agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of a later EIR or negative declaration." As discussed earlier, the Master Plan would be consistent with the General Plan land use designations. Furthermore, the land use and traffic assumptions upon which the traffic analysis was completed' for the General Plan EIR were based have not changed substantially since the analysis was completed. Therefore, the Master Plan would not conflict with the City's General Plan and impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact. In 2009, the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an "opt out" option defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to development in the City of Carlsbad. Thus, no impact would occur. c) No Impact. As discussed in Vlll.e and f, the Master Plan does not lie within an ALUCP Airport Safety Zone, Avigation Easement Area, or the Airport Overflight Notification Area. Thus, development pursuant to the Master Plan would have no impact on airport operations. d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements would be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. Further, the Master Plan promotes lowering of the April 2018 -65-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 railroad below street level and in a trench, which would eliminate safety concerns associated with the present at-grade railroad crossings in and near the Village and Barrio. As contained in the errata to the Planning Commission staff report, the Master Plan also recognizes the need to maintain certain features for safety reasons while the tracks remain in their current at-grade configuration, such as curbs and medians near the railroad crossings to provide channelization to discourage motorists from circumventing gate arms and careful placement of street trees to not reduce visibility of warning devices or approaching trains. Thus, no impact would occur. e) No Impact. Master Plan recommendations have been developeq in coordination with the Carlsbad Fire Department. Projects based on those recommendations and other circulation improvements that may be implemented in the future would be designed and constructed to City standards. Therefore, improvements would not result in inadequate emergency access. Thus, no impact would occur. f} Less than Significant Impact. The Master Plan includes a number of features and policies designed to implement the General Plan goals and policies intended to facilitate alternate forms of transportation including transit, pedestrian and bicycle. The Master Plan Mobility and Beautification P-1-aflchapter, for example, emphasizes the importance of encouraging a walkable community through improved street lighting, street trees, and wider sidewalks. To promote bicycle use, the Master Plan recommends enhancements to the bikeway network including buffered .'.:bike .Ja.Ae.5boxes" and sharrows, cycle tracks, bicycle parking and a bicycle boulevard along Chestnut Avenueon street neighaorhood greenways. This network is intended to build on the Bikeway Master Plan adopted by the City in 2009. In addition, access within the Master Plan area is conducive to transit use, and Master Plan objectives seek to further improve access by all means. The Carlsbad Village train station is served by AMTRAK and NCTD and bus service in the Village is provided by NCTD. Thus, the impact of the Master Plan on alternate forms of transportation would be less than significant. XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Qroject cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural Potentially Less than Less than resource, defined in Public Resources Code Si:gnific:ant with No Significant Significant section 21074 as either a site1 feature, Qlace, Mitigation Impact cultural landsca(!e that is geogra(!hicallll defined Impact Incorporated Impact in terms of the size and SCO(!e Of the (andsca(!e, sacred (!lace, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: al Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local D Jg1_ D D regist er of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1{k}, or bl A resource determined bl£ the lead agencl£, in its discretion and SUQQOrted by substantial evidence, to be significant 1;1ursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision {cl of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In a1212J~ihg D 181 D D the criteria set forth in subdivision {cl of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agencl£ shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. April 2018 -66-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. AB 52, effective July 1, 2015, introduced the Tribal cultural resource as a class of environmental resource with additional considerations relating to Native American consultation required during the CEQA process. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places. and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1. As discussed in V.b, the Master Plan area is located within an area that is culturally significant to two Native American tribes known to have occupied the area: the Luiseno and the Dieguefio (Kumeyaay). As a result, future development pursuant to the Master Plan will be required to implement Mitigation Measure ARCH-1. In addition, future development projects within the Master Plan area would be required to implement the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to archaeological resources, including Policies 7-P.8 and 7-P.9 and would be subject to procedures of the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. b} Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. At the time of publication of the Draft MND for public review, the City had a standing tribal consultation request pursuant to AB 52 with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians {SLR). Accordingly, the City contacted SLR regarding the project on January 21, 2016. The Native American consultation process began January 25, 2016 and has been ongo·ing. The SLR has responded that the area is culturally significant, In response, the City has added a new Master Plan policy to land Use and Community Character Goal 1.5.1 E ("Recognize and support the historical roots of the Village and Barrio") requiring compliance with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. The added policy, contained in the errata to the Planning Commission staff report, states "comply with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources." The addition of this policy and reference to the guidelines in mitigation measure ARCH-1 will conclude consultation with SLR. As noted in Item V.b and XVII.a, future development within the Master Plan area has the potential to result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure ARCH-1, in addition to .implementation of applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to archaeological resources and the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines, would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. )AA.I....XVII I. UTILITIES AND SERVICE LesS"than SYSTEMS Potentially Signifjcant with Less than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation lmpa,ct Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality D D ~ D Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the D D ~ D construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? April 2018 -67-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16~01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 X\AI..XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Less than SYSTEMS Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of D D ~ D which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements D D ~ D and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Resurt in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate D D ~ D capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the D D ~ D project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid D D ~ D waste? a) Less than Significant Impact. The City provides sewer collection services within the Master Plan area. Wastewater is delivered to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, operated by the Encina Wastewater Authority, for treatment and recycling. The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility currently treats approximately 22 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater and has a design capacity of 40.51 MGD. Future development within the Master Plan area would generate additional wastewater that would require increases in treatment over current levels. As described in the General Plan Final EIR Section 3.12, Public Utilities and Infrastructure, the City's current capacity rights for wastewater treatment at the Encina treatment facility total approximately 10.26 MGD. Other jurisdictions have capacity rights to the remaining Encina Water Pollution Control Facility treatment capacity. The Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan (2012) projected future city wastewater flows in 2035 to be approximately 10.0 MGD, b.ased on growth estimates prepared prior to the current General Plan's adoptioh fn September 2015. In addition, the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) 2040 Master Plan estimates that at buildout of the service area (based on jurisdictions' general plans in place before the City of Carlsbad adopted its current General Plan), 39.4 MGD of the buildout flows are projected to be treated at the EWPCF, which is less than the current capacity of the facility (40.51 MGD). There is sufficient existing capacity to handle current and future wastewater flow. Further, on-going monitoring of wastewater flow volumes by EWA ahd the Carlsbad Municipal Water District indicate a downward or flat trend in wastewater flow volumes for all rnernber agencies in the service area. The EWA 2040 Master Plan also identifies property south of the Encina treatment facility where the facility could be expanded to accommodate additional capacity. The City would continue to coordinate with the local wastewater districts to ensure that new development would not exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. Development fees would be paid by new development to fund necessary increases to the facilities and ensure that new wastewater facilities are constructed to meet performance standards and allow for future maintenance. April 2018 -68-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Therefore, wastewater treatment requirements would not be exceeded, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Urban water management plans, recycled water management plans, and water master plans have been prepared by the water and wastewater services providers within the City to assess current and future demands. Water for the Master Plan area is provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). The CMWD's ~2015 Urban Water Management Plan, dated June lGH2016, states that the CMWD has no c1:1rrent or planned f1:1ture water supply projects other than possible expansions to the rec1•cled water s1:1pply plans to expand its recycled water distribution system and build a direct connection to existing desalinated water infrastructure; these expansions would mitigate for the increase local water supply reliability and offset projected water demand and demand fOf 1,\laste·Nater facilities. The CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project is currently being implemented, with construction of multigle pipeline segments and the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility expansion to increase local production of recycled water underway (CMWD 2016). In addition, the Carlsbad Desalination Plant is operational and is projected to pro1Jide an additional SO MGD of potable water to the County's water s1:1pply, of which 10,000 acre feet has been pro13osed to be utilized/13urci:lased for utilization throughout Carlsbadis projected to provide CMWD approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year of additional desalinated seawater via the planned direct connection to be blended into treated water already purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority. According to the CMWD 2012 Water Master PlanJ dated November 2011, the citywide demand for water at General Plan buildout (2035) is conservatively estimated to be 22.8 MGD. Future development within the Master Plan area could generate additional demand for water and wastewater services and result in the need for expansion of existing facilities. New projects would be required to implement efforts to conserve water and increase use of recycled water, as applicable, as well as demonstrate consistency with General Plan goals and policies pertaining to sustainability and infrastructure. Any future water infrastructure projects necessary to expand water or wastewater facilities would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. Development within the Master Plan area would primarily include redevelopment of existing developed areas that would generate increased storm water flows. Increased storm water could result in the need for new infrastructure to treat and convey storm water to prevent flooding and adverse water quality effects. New infrastructure and storm water facilities would be developed within existing public right-of-way or within the development footprint of storm water generating uses. Projects that would disturb greater than one acre of land or create more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, or otherwise pose a threat to stormwater quality, would be subject to post-construction priority development project requirements in the Carlsbad Storm Water Standards Manual; a SWPPP would be required. Compliance with the City's regulations and ordinances for grading, drainage, and storm water would ensure that the capacity of the existing storm drain systems would not be exceeded, and that new and/or retrofitted facilities would be provided, as necessary. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. Water for the Master Plan area is provided by CMWD. The CMWD1s 2012 Water Master Plan, dated November 2011 and based on (1) approved land uses within the City; (2) the City's Growth Management Plan; and (3) SANDAG growth projections> conservatively estimates the citywide demand for water at General Plan buildout (2035) to be 22.8 MGD. This represents an increase of 3.7 MGD over the existing average daily demand of 19.1 MGD. CMWD would continue to purchase April 2018 -69-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-0JjMP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 water from the San Diego County Water Authority-and plans to meet future water projections through the use of groundwater and increased recycled water usage. In assessing water supply, Section 3.12 of the General Plan EIR concluded that sufficient supply was expected to meet the needs of future development at buildout under the General Plan. As future development within the Master Plan would be consistent with the land use designations established by the General Plan, the impact of the Master Plan on water supply would be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. Refer to XVII.a, above. f) Less than Significant Impact. The City has a contract with Waste Management of North County for the disposal of solid waste generated by existing and future residents and businesses within the City. According to the General Plan EIR Section 3.12, Waste Management of North County has sufficient capacity for solid waste processing and disposal for the anticipated increase in population at buildout of the General Plan, which would encompass future anticipated population growth within the Master Plan area. Since the Master Plan is not anticipated to increase solid waste generation above the generation rates assumed in the General Plan EIR, impacts to solid waste facilities associated with future development within the Master Plan area would be less than significant. g) Less than Significant Impact. In 2011, the State legislature enacted AB 341 (California Public Resource Code Section 42649.2), requiring all cities and counties within California to divert a minimum 75 percent of all solid waste from landfill disposal. The County of San Diego prepares an Integrated Waste Management Plan every five years to assess solid waste needs within the County, describe local waste diversion and disposal conditions, and' provide realistic programs to achieve waste diversion goals. As indicated in the Five-Year Review Report of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan for the County of San Diego, dated September 2012August 2017, countywide per capita disposal tonnage decreased by ±3-approximately 10 percent between 2000 aAd 20W, dl:le to iAcreased coAservation and recycliAg actii.·ities combined witl:i the econoA1ic do1,.,'nh:1rn2010 and 2015 and is well below the state-mandated 50 percent per capita disposal target mandated by AB 9392• The 2015 per capita disposal rate for the city was 7 .3 pounds per person per day, below the 50 percent per capita disposal target of 8.4 pounds per person per day. Although population within the County has increased and will continue to increase, the regression analysis summarized in the report predicted that sufficient landfill space should be available until 2028through 2059 based on permitted capacity. and through the state-mandated 15-year period ending in 2032. This meets the state req1-JireA1eAt that the Gou At',' A'laiAtain 15 years of disposal capacity. Efforts to meet the aggressive waste diversion goals of AB 341 and continued improvements in recycling would likely result in even greater future disposal capacity than predicted in the Rve-Year Review ~eport. Future development and improvements within the Master Plan area would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal and recycling. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. 2 The SO percent per cap1ta disposal target is the amount of disposal that is approximately equivalent to the 50 percent diversion requirement per AB 939 (County 2017). April 2018 -70-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 XVW.XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Less than SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or D r2j D D animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a D D ~ D project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial D D D ~ adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, above, future development and improvements adjacent to Buena Vista lagoon could potentially impact sensitive biological resources within the lagoon. Impacts to unknown buried cultural resources also could occur during construction of future projects throughout the Master Plan area. The potential to degrade environmental quality would be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of Mitigation Measure 810-1 identified in Section IV and Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 identified in Section V, Cultural Resources. See Sections IVL~ V. and XVII for further discussion of these issue areas. b) Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual project effects that, when considered together or in concert with other projects, combine to result in a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). The proposed Master Plan implements and is consistent with the City's General Plan and land use designations. As stated in Chapter 5 of the Recirculated portions of the General Plan EIR, air quality, transportation, noise, and GHG emissions impacts identified in the EIR are considered cumulatively significant in nature because the analysis is projected to the year 2035 and includes regional growth. Cumulative effects on land use character, water quality, biological resources, hazardous materials, and historical resources were all identified as being less than cumulatively considerable. Section 15152(f)(1) of CEQA Guidelines states ''Where a Lead Agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of a later EIR or negative declaration." The Master Plan adheres to all other land use plans and policies with jurisdiction in the project area, and feasible mitigation measures, including those identified in the General April 2018 -71-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 Plan EIR (and incorporated by reference herein), will apply as appropriate to future development in the Master Plan area. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The proposed Master Plan does not propose environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Adherence to regulatory codes, ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines, in conjunction with Mitigation Measure NOl-1 would ensure that construction and operation of future development and improvement projects w1thin the Village and Barrio would not result in substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on humans. X-QbXX. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Prior to approval of any development located within or adjacent to sensitive biological resources identified on Figure 4-2 of the General Plan, a biological resource assessment shall be prepared to determine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. If impacts are identified, the biological assessment shall identify, and the project shall implement, measures to reduce project impacts consistent With: (1) the City's Guidelines for Biological Studies and Riparian and Wetland Buffers; (2) General Plan Policies 4-P.9, 4-P,19, 4-P.64; and (3) the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Mitigation Measure ARCH-1: Prior to approval of any discretionary project which may involve ground disturbance in areas which have been previously undisturbed or where historic or prehistoric archaeological resources are known to exist, a cultural resource assessment shall be conducted .QY...2 qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for significant archaeological resources to occur. Any field survey or work shall be conducted by the archaeologist with a Native American monitor present. If significant cultural resources are observed or suspected to occur beneath the surface, the assessment shall identify mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Assessment and survey procedures, and +!reatment of any cultural resources discovered during site grading,_ shall comply with the ~Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resource~ Guidelines, as applicable. Determination of the s,gnificance of the cultural resource(s) and development and implementation of any data recovery program appropriate treatment measures and procedures shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist in cons1.1ltation with interested Native American tribes. All Native American human remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to their most likely descendent and repatriated. The final disposition of tribal cultural resourcesartifacts not directly associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation with interested tribes in accordance with the Carlsbad Tribal. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Guidelines; if the artifact is not accepted by Nati•Je American tribes, it shall be offered to an institution staffed bi,, qualified 13rofessionals, as may be determined by the City Planner. Artifacts include material recovered from all phases of work, including the iAitial surve11, testing, indexing, data reco,.•ery, and monitoring. Prior to occupancy, a cultural resource monitoring report identifying all materials recovered shall be submitted to the South Coast Information Center with a copy to the City Planner. Mitigation Measure PALE0-1: Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground disturbance in areas which have a moderate to high potential for paleontological resources, a paleontological resource assessment shall be conducteel to determine the potential for significant paleontological resources to ooaH=be impacted will be evaluated. If significant paleontological resources could be impacted, a Principal Paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address the following information, as applicable and appropriate, and to conduct mitigation monitoring: April 2018 -72-f nitiat Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 • The level of monitoring (spot checks, part time or full time), protocols and authorization for work stoppages, and safety procedures; • The need for Contractor Awareness Training for all earthmoving personnel for any projects where a monitor will not be present full time; • A research design listing the research questions and the data requirements for those questions; • The level and type of assistance from the contractor needed by the paleontologist to take bulk samples and place them into a safe area for processing; • The methods for fossil collection, fossil preparation, fossil identification, stratigraphic profiles, and curation; • The types of progress reports that will be provided to the project proponent and City (weekly or monthly); • The schedule for reporting; • A recommendation for the updating of the paleontology sensitivity model, which takes into consideration the presence or absence of paleontological resources, the amount of ground disturbance, and the potential for future discoveries; and • The identity of the financially-responsible party. Mitigation monitoring will occur in accordance with the Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and specimens of significant fossils, all paleontological data, and a copy of the final report shall be curated at the San Diego Natural Historv Museum.m<eai,<ation in tl=le area suspecteel to contain paleontological resources sf:lall be rnonitored by a qualiiied paleontologist. If sigflificant resources are encountereel, tf:ley sl=lall ee recovered and conve't'Cd to an appropriate repository. Mitigation Measure NOl-1: A noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and noise attenuation measures identified in the analysis shall be incorporated. The noise analysis shall include the following: • Representative, on-site day and night sound level measurement; • Delineation of current (measured) and projected (General Plan or 10 yea rs ln future, whichever horizon extends further out} noise contours; • Identify noise levels with and without the proposed project, ranging from 55 to 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) (day-night averaged sound level [LoN]) within the proposed development site; and • If noise levels exceed the standards in Table 5-1 of the General Plan, include a description of noise abatement measures to mitigate the noise to allowable levels for the proposed use. April 2018 -73-lnitlal Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16~01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 XXI. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pL1rsuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b} Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. XXII. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, or on line as indicated. 1. General Plan & Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2011011004), City of Carlsbad Planning Division, certified September 22, 2015. 2. Recirculated Portions of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Generdl Plan Update, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March 2015. 3. Draft General Plan & Draft Climate Action Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March 2014. 4. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Carlsbad General Pion Update and Climate Action Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated July 18, 2015, and approved September 22, 2015, as part of City Council Resolution 2015-242. 5. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, approved September 22, 2015. 6. Carlsbad Climate Action Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, approved September 22, 2015. 7. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, 1996 as amended. 8. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code {CMC}, Title 18 Building Codes and Regulations, City of Carlsbad Building Division, as updated. 9. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code {CMC}, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated. 10. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad {HMP ), City of Carlsbad Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004. April 2018 -74-Initial Study Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16~01 11. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan- Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Amended December 1, 2011. 12. County of San Diego Countywide Five-Year Review Report, County Integrated Waste Management Plan, dated Septer'flber 2012/\ugust 2017. Available at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/ dam/sdc/dpw/SOLID WASTE PLANNING and RECYCLING/Files/2.%20Five-YearReview- %20Final.pdf httf:):/f-www.sandiegocounty.go1.i,'content/dam/sdc/dpw/SOLID_WASTE_PLANNING_and_RECYCll ~JG/Files/CIV>lMP _Sa nDiegoCounty_Final.pdf. 13. Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). 2012 Water Master Plan. Prepared by Atkins. San Diego, California. November 2011. ~CMWD. JMfJ-2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell. San Diego, California: Brown and Caldwell. June WY-2016. ±4-:15. Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and-Paleontoloqical Resources Guidelines. Prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. with contributions from Cogstone Resource Management. San Diego, California. September 2017. April 2018 -75-Initial Study April 2018 Project Name: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Project No: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -76-Initial Study RIVERSIDE i COUNTY ORANGE ! SAN DIEGO J,. COUNTY J COUNTY ·, •• .. ...... ... ,. ..... r-·· ··-, , ---------/ I ... O'Neill LakeJ Pacific Ocean [~ ] Lake §,211lford Escondido t' San Vicente Reservoir Sutherland ;t Reservoir . ../ ~ Loveland Reservoir Julian •BatTe/1 Lake ~ ~ l Otay Resen1oir Regional Location Map VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HELIX /A0::::::::====::::8 Miies Figure 1 Envlronmenta/Plannlng----------------------------------------------------- ; gl ~ i ~ -Source: Village and Barrio Master Plan 2018 Project Location VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HELIX A 0c:::========i'·0 ~~et Environmenta/Planning~::::;;i:=======.:.:....-------------------------------Figure 2 ii --Coast~! Zone Sou..nda.ry 0 Propoud Master Plan Boundary E)(istin9 Gen~ral Plan Land Use Designations; R .. 1.s, Rosldentlal 0 .. 1.5 du/oc R~. Residentia.l 0-4 du/ac IH. Residwffal 4-8 du/ac • R-15, Res.idential 8-15 dU/ac ;;;;; R .. 15JO, Resld&ntiat 8·tS du/ae J Office • R-23. Re&identlaJ 15~3 dll/ac • R-30, R.,lden\laJ 23-30 do/ac • V,Vlllage a GC, Gene<al Comme,clal j -VC, V1$itorComrner~ar ! O,Office -• Coestal %one 8o&Jndary 0 PropoHd Master Plan Boundary Proposed General Phm Land U5o V-8, VJtag~Batrio R .. 1,,s. Retldert'~I 0,.1,6 du/e.c R-4, Re1ido-ntlel Q..-4 dulae R..S, Resk:tentlaJ +8 dufac R .. 1s1 Residential S-15 du/ac R-15/0, Resldantlal a.-1Sdutac. /Off~ i • P,Public I : ~=:~:::P::::i:nComdor ~-~--, ~-------·· . --·~· --~--~ .---~---~--a ~---===~Feel .-0 0 1,000 Somtc: Cit)' of Cnrlsbnd -• ... ----.. -.. HELi X VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -... , Pb"'"" 17 igure 3 ~ • : e I l ! i I 1 j I ... Source; City or Ca11.$bad --Coastal Zone Boundary 0 Proposed Master Plan Boundary Existing Zoning Districts: R .. 1. O.ne Family Re$fdotntlaJ R .. J, M1Jlti f-,irmiy R6slc!entitil • R0,\1, Ruld&n6al 0enslty • Multipl• • R•P•O, Residantial Profoss.ional O,Office -C-1 or C-2, Gener.I Ne1ghborliood Commcrcl31 • C•T, Commercial Tou,r,t P-U. Public UGl.ty • V-R. Village Re~•w P-C, Planned Communhy • OS, Open Space • r .. c, Transportation Corridor NOTE: The area depicted within the Coastal Zone constitutes the Ca~sbad Local Coastal Program Zoning Map. --coastal zone 8oul'l(lt11y 0 Proposed Master Plan Boundary Proposed Zoning Districts: V-8. Vi11ege-8arrio R-1. One Family Residential R-3, Mufti Fam~y Residential RO.M, Re.s1.dentfsl Den.sity-Multiple R-P..Q, Residential Professional O,Office C-1 o,c-2, General Neighbolhood Commerci$1 C-T, commercial Tourist P-U, Public Utility P-C, Planned Communjry OS, Open Space Q. _! Existing and Proposed Zoning VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HELIX Figure4 ~lfi'Qi'V!ICOtafl"'1r.iq ~ ~ :;; § ~ e ~ -~ :if ~ I l 'o .E ill -rt "1 k 5 'ti "' ; l 119 : 0 250 500 1,000 !e '··, ••••==::::1•••••• Feet !)i ··,~ _/"' . .,, rt r. ..... i ·. I ··-·-··-··-··-··-··-... , ! ~ / rl''-/_./ ./ ' I i , .. ,_"4t ', . i \ ~ .... -··· -'~ I ;· t, ! i ! i . )·--· I I '-..J f \ i ~ BEECH AVE, ~ ! ~--···. -~ ! ! i :,0 s: 0, )> \ t k ~---·; ; i ·o o VI V'-~ 0 m ,z i . ' : CHRISTIANSEN AVE. V'I ;_ •• ,_ ........ -: ; : O I • I ''"' z : j" ""' \\ ?::i ~ ~ ~-·-··· ! l.--y ! ! i ~ i __ ..... i i j ~ I ! i i i r.· ·-··· I ! l. • ! i ,.-j i ; i ! t .. -. .i ' ~ -"\ ~ "-# :-I GR'AN0 P..VFJ} a ,,-"..IA .. j I -• i • I -.:.----.--, .. -, .. .,..._. •. L.-... -~ ... -... -----... -,-· ·.t ,_ ' X ~ARL~BAD v,:i.A~ DR. -~=f / l t \ \ -~ . #, ,' -~ ---~·· . . i ' ·-··-: L .... -~ I a II , .. !.r a a ., 11 ---·-a ! 1J1r-·-.. -.. -·:-. • i ~i--::.. _. • •••••• -•• , •• •! ;1ari· ii ••• @f,KA~E!I •••. • • I I ·-' • ! : i -:-·--··-: X * * -- Pedestrian Scramble Public Plazas at Key Intersections Reconfigured Train Station Entry Proposed Cycle Track Re-route Coastal Rail Trail Grand Avenue Connection to East of 1-5 Reconnected Street Network i 1 \\\ - -• ! ~--~ lll!III - Grand Avenue Pedestrian Promenade/festival street Pedestrian Connection Enhanced Beach Entrance New Civic Space Expanded Rotary Park Village and Barrio Master Plan Area Coastal Zone Boundary -i -• ~{ . i i i ! i : ' i ; f j I I I ~ § Source: Village and Barrio Master Plan 2018 ~ ~L--------------------------------------------------__,J Key Village Recommendations VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Hfia ~~s Environmental Planning-------------------------------------------- ~ ~ ~ s ~ 5 I i .. , I t ·~ .,, .,, ", I ~· ~ !,! ! \ ·-··- +-\~ ......:.---J~ ] • , ___ J;...:----:----~ -• j r·-.. -·,-•r -' ,. ; =. ·, •,,. ---J.iii:t. •• + .•.• ·-· •1 • • \··n . ---r.iit::I . a .O_jt§V~ ~-· ~ 8 -i i '·-··-.. "'! .(j) ••..... -' -:;; • . •!•••••i \ .., -.,, , . . __ .. , : --;:: . . J ~-• , -I , ~ a • l ~ r.·-·-·1 i. g • i • .. • ~ _,..-i i i \ ~ ,, ,f <l" -~ I: 1 .. -: ••• -E /j' ·-/j' PINE AV -~ r J.J.J ~, t l -1 ~l. ./ •1. I • -"'IA\ I i \ l -.____ WALtlm'AVE. • ! L..-.. J I I ,,u • ! i l t'-11\t't • :' I ,,,1 - 0 0 ' ' -- Shared Spaces Public Parking in Railroad ROW Existing Traffic Circles Proposed Traffic Circles or Intersection Improvements Improved Coastal Rail Trail Entries Existing Coastal Rail Trail Proposed Cycle Track One-Way Street Reconnected Street Network Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection Village and Barrio Master Plan Area Coastal Zone Boundary i • ' i ., ; ! 'i' @ CHESTNUT~E: ; ~•H @ ~ -!8 i ~-ft j i ~:;;; II i I • i !. 'I · / ......... PALMAVE. (9 \ " ·1 i ~ " :, 1· -··~ AVOCADOLN. ACACIA AVE. I ~-..... ,., fl ! ,~, -I i "--1co ~ , CAMELLfA PL. 11. i "'0 {1-1-1,,~··~: , II i ft ! _,._Ti/f---HiH .J--- i ; i I II . i A -~ r-··--··-··--·-··-·-··--·-··-··-··-··-·,. ft, 1 JUNIPERAVE. ~ 7' J n ' I •• .-.-i ' '1 i \ j ·= i i , • _·n 1 HEMLOCK AVE. •, : :.-,• 1 I ·11, • t• i i 11 i • = i \ \. 1t!=-!:9:!. j . ··.,; I t i i "··=·~ ~\ I 0 125 250 I ~L-__ s_o_ur_ce_:_V_il_la_g_e_an_d_B_arr_io_M_ast_e_r_P_1an_2_0_1& __________________________________ __, Key Barrio Recommendations VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Hfla ~~6 Environmental Planning-------------------------------------------- > "1 J Pacific Ocean I ! i I I ' f i -Village Center (VC) D Village General (VG) D Hospitality (HOSP) -Freeway Commercial (FC) D Pine-Tyler Mixed-use (PT) D Barrio Perimeter (BP) r-Barrio Center (BC) ~ Village-Barrio Other (VBO) -·-Village and Barrio Master Plan Area ··--Coastal Zone B~undary ***' Railroad HELIX Environmenta/Plannlng•----------------------------------2~~~ Figure 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix A Draft IS/MND Figures (replaced by figures in Final IS/MND) i I ~ i RIVERSID.E p COUNTY --~---··-··? ORANGE ! SAN DIEGO ., •• COUNTY J COUNTY '• • ..._ . ~ ;* ,flt_ ··-·· j ! -··-··-. .. - O'Nef/1 lake~ Pacific Ocean Vail lake4 lake Wohlford .. - \ San Vicente ,.. Resen1ofr ..,• Otay Resen,oir .Swherland e,esuvoir I t I El Capilan Resen;oir 1-=- ~~ . 'i..,ove/and Re.tervoir ~arreulake iL _______ ..JL....:~L::::::::......--;;~=:i"~~~~ Regional Location Map Note: Draft IS/MND Figure, superseded by Final 1S/MND VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HfLJX /Aoc:=:======:::::i8Miles Figure 1 E::nvironmentalP/anning-/1.~,:::;::;:::;::;:;::;~~!.'.:!~-------------------------------------- Project Location Note: Draft IS/MND Figure, superseded by Final IS/MND VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HELIX /A oc:======31,o~~et Figure2 Environmenta/Planning...J.~~====:=:~:'...------------------------------ ~ . I I l ll i ~ ~ g 0 P!'O'DOUGM.u.lerP11n8ounlfa,y E:dsttng Land Use DHlgnittons: 1"1.S,R•~ori\,.10.1.Sdu,'ac R,.,1,Ro~11!1110'4du.'u-«-e..R•tld&-11bl4-6dlll,1c -R-i:S,R•>ldenf".al&-1Sdllhli: • R.t5.'l,Ruide:i!l1lt.1:SdtncA.ou1&heppf11gC•nler -R-lSN'C, R•lido,.1:a1e-1:s cWocM•1!01 Coll'IMOlcbl § ~t5JO,Rnld,1:1ll1IM:Sdur.~t~e -fit.2:S,ReSidol'UJtS.2ldu!~o • R-30,RO$olclof("'.&l~,0flhC av.~ • L..t.oe11IShcppi'19Ctr.tor -CC-. Gori.r,t,1ComJMrdo1 • VC,VlrlorComm,t,1d;,1 • VCIO$. V.Sl!,orCol'\-"f\Otcbt\'Opon Sp;11c. -R, R-glo1ui1CQ!l'l,.._fcbl Pl,P\1Mo41MWW&I PI.O. Plal'll'IOd lriWstiloll'Olf.u o.~. -P.Nilic CF, Ot111t11111,.'tj ,-,dtih -0$...0J:41'1 $put 8 -==::J Fee, Pt!O, Pl'al'f\H lnduMfl;,at,'Otfic. O.Office -P.PlAlJC CF, Co~ily F1¢11il»~ -0$,0pe,11$p1eo ~I ~ ----~---""''"~ ' -------,,,,_ I Souroe: City of ~risbad • TC. Tn111.,po1ulbnCo,~r 0 SOO -TC, THris.po1t:1.1briCc.1rld11t Note: Draft IS/MND Figure, superseded by Final IS/MND VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HELIX Figure3 ,,, __ t i I ! I o~ ... _,Plll:t.~r txlSlil\QZ.<ln~OlStf"ttU: -ME'llc~~ L tN..ta-•wi:IM"111~, -A..E,.A11..iR•Wr, .... ~ 1il-!..ONh~"ltitM01111 .. 1 llt~~l~R""*-..,_ A4./<IIJ.b~RdloltllftM .IIO-.... ~f!'fal°"4AY·~l4" a A~R .. 0.11~-1.1111·~S11a>.¢.flinW a cav~.,11 .. ~1.l,lcib.,~f'rt lt,t A..,_I 1--.1 a11-w,R~.-.-, a A.O.O.Rriel..-c.'fl.P1or.,_,_, OOCf« el ().o,p~ Of'~"'°"~L'l;II -°'\Q:C-al~oC•ll'lli' -C•SOIC.2,0M.,_lt>~(:00!!,-.dlf ac.r.c--lo-9't • C-T.()IC-:,.0.~._l,~•llllHM)ll~CWtJ!\tffiJI 11i:io,we.1,c:oa..it-.~'t-0.'1$-"~".-.:, • CM, t.,vw0:,,,,-.111 .M.l~I • P.M,.Atffld~ •• , tlJNIIIO,,......~ -fl-U."'1':4e~ .Y.st,.......,_._ 8 ~Feel 0 500 o.~. CS ~,o c•_,,,111_.1n11___, • «,Lo.al !'"•""'1; C.111111' a c.,uc.-1.a-•MKl~O.-;t,1 -C-l,C.-tilflowiu -C..l.Of0.,-0.C_o .. ;IIOlt°~!\tf,..:.'f'"l,o""°"C-~ '1f it0-M!C-l,(Oll'fflto--~••0~-Mlh!filt .¢41, ... fNV~ I ~ I -~ ~\Y6(\~~,aat VA\"'A J I -T·C..T-*\lflllll"""*" "9!!!.. ~~~.M~~\,/~~ ~~\\~ I ,i.c.Ptt .. ....ieo ..... ,_. t..C,Umc..:C-1\111 .0$.0----l.C,T---.. ...,.,.,,,.,., -T·l;.T-*\lllllll"""*" Soun:c: Cli.y of arlsbad Note: Draft IS/MND Figure, superseded by Final IS/MND Existing and Proposed Zoning HELIX VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -..,.,,.,.,.,,.~ Figure 4 : ~ -, r J ' ' ' HELIX Environmenta/Plannlng---------------------------....!:F~iguEre:_25 t .,, I ~ i i !, ~ I ~ ' \ ~ Source: Village and Barrio Master Plan 2015 ~ Letters on figure correspond to recommendations I isted in Project Description Barrio Illustrative Plan Note: Draft IS/MND Figure, superseded by Final IS/MND VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HELIX Figure6 Environmental Planning----------------------------------- ] j 1 ~ ~' <;, ~ ., ~ i 1 "' j :]; I i ~ i a er an 2015 ~ Source: Village and Barrio Mast Pl Note: Draft IS/MND Figure, HELIX . Environmental Planning superseded by Final IS/MND { ·--{ f ..... Coastal zone Boundary ll!::a!III Neighborhood District (ND) Edge District (ED) Tyler-Roosevelt District (TD) --General District (GD) Center District (CED) -Core District (COD) Civic District (CD) Transect Districts VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Figure 7a 1 ,; 1 e ~I .,. ~ i :;; -0 'E .:: ii, .s :l: ~ i a ,, . 1 Source: Village and Barrio Master Plan 2015 Note: Draft IS/MND Figure, superseded by Final IS/MND J ' I ' Cl / \e.r ' I.. .. ; I I '. l ....... _,_ Tyler-Roosevelt District (TD) 131iii11 General District (GD) Center District (CED) -Core District (COD) -Civic District (CD) Transect Districts VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HELIX Environmenta/Planning--------------------------------------Ft·~ig[ur~e~7~b l I ~ ill ¾ ~I q t I i L--------------~------:--=--==--------=---_J Note: Draft IS/MND Figure, superseded by Final IS/MNrf oastal Zone Boundaries VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN HELIX EnvironmentalPlanning---------------------------------------F~ig[u~r~e:!8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix B -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (__ City of Carlsbad PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Master Plan PROJECT NO: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 APPROVAL DATE/RESOULTION NUMBER(S): TBD The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). MITIGATION MEASURE 810-1 Prior to approval of any development located within or adjacent to sensitive biological resources identified on Figure 4-2 of the General Plan, a biological resource assessment shall be prepared to determine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. If impacts are identified, the biological assessment shall identify, and the project shall implement, measures to reduce project impacts consistent with: (1) the City's Guidelines for Biological Studies and Riparian and Wetland Buffers; (2) General Plan Policies 4-P .9, 4-P.19, 4-P.64; and (3) the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Project ARCH-1 Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground Project disturbance in areas which have been previously undisturbed or where historic or prehistoric archaeological resources are known to exist, a cultural resource assessment shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for significant Explanation of Headings Type= Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept.= Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation= When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. "' a. ~ ao ·= l5 ... c 0 :!E ao c .g ... E s r ·;: ... a. 0 ~~ PLN, ENG PLN, ENG PLN Planning Division "' C C 0 ... +' C.: J! C C 0 -0 "' C "' E ~ {l:~ 0 .:: a. .s:. ~§ "' ENG Land Development Engineering Division BLDG Building Division "' ~ ... E ... a: Page 1 ofS PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Master Plan PROJECT NUMBER: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 1~01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 MITIGATION MEASURE archaeological resources to occur. Any field survey or work shall be conducted by the archaeologist with a Native American monitor present. If significant cultural resources are observed or suspected to occur beneath the surface, the assessment shall identify mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Assessment and survey procedures, and treatment of any cultural resources discovered during site grading shall comply with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Determination of the significance of the cultural resource(s) and development and implementation of any appropriate treatment measures shall be conducted by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with interested Native American tribes. All Native American human remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to their most likely descendent and repatriated. The final disposition of tribal cultural resources not directly associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation with interested tribes in accordance with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Prior to occupancy, a cultural resource monitoring report identifying all materials recovered shall be submitted to the South Coast Information Center with a copy to the City P·lanner. PALE0-1 Prior to approval of any project which may involve ground Project disturbance in areas which have a moderate to high potential for paleontological resources, the potential for significant paleontological resources to be impacted will be evaluated. If significant paleontological resources could be impacted, a Principal Paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Appendix B -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program QI 0. r: .., ~ 0 ... c 0 ~ ... GO C C Gl B~ -.. C 0. 0 QI ~ 0 PLN, ENG "' C "' ii: C 0 C 3: 0 ..c: VI C 0 · .. !2 C ., ] E c.: . .!! ·~ 0.. "' E >-Page 2. of 5 PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Master Plan PROJECT NUMBER: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 MITIGATION MEASURE Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address the following information, as applicable and appropriate, and to conduct mitigation monitoring: • The level of monitoring (spot checks, part time or full time), protocols and authorization for work stoppages, and safety procedures; • The need for Contractor Awareness Training for all earthmoving personnel for any projects where a monitor will not be present full time; • A research design listing the research questions and the data requirements for those questions; • The level and type of assistance from the contractor needed by the paleontologist to take bulk samples and place them into a safe area for processing; • The methods for fossil collection, fossil preparation, fossil identification, stratigraphic profiles, and cu ration; • The types of progress reports that will be provided to the project proponent and City (weekly or monthly); • The schedule for reporting; • A recommendation for the updating of the paleontology sensitivity model, which takes into consideration the presence or absence of paleontological resources, the amount of ground disturbance, and the potential for future discoveries; and • The identity of the financially-responsible party. Appendix B -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ... ~ C OI .:: E .s ~ ·-"' C CL 0 .. ~ 0 .. C "' C.: C 0 C 3 0 ~ Ill C 0 E C -g e c;: .!!! .:: a. ., E >-Page 3 of 5 PROJECT NAME: Village and Barrio Master Plan PROJECT NUMBER: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 MITIGATION MEASURE NOl-1 Mitigation monitoring will occur in accordance with the Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and specimens of significant fossils, all paleontological data, and a copy of the final report shall be curated at the San Diego Natural History Museum. A noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and Project noise attenuation measures identified in the analysis shall be incorporated. The noise analysis shall include the following: • Representative, on-site day and night sound level measurement; • Delineation of current (measured) and projected (General Plan or 10 years in future, whichever horizon extends further out) noise contours; • Identify noise levels with and without the proposed project, ranging from 55 to 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) (day-night averaged sound level [Ldn]) within the proposed development site; and • If noise levels exceed the standards in Table 5-1 of the General Plan, include a description of noise abatement measures to mitigate the noise to allowable levels for the proposed use. Appendix 8-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ""i: C GI .: E 2 t: -"' C Q. 0 0/ ~ Q PLN, ENG, BLDG "' C "' a: C 0 C 3 0 ~ "' C .2 5 C 11 e Ii=~ .: Q. "' E > -~ "' E "' a:: Page 4 of S Appendix C Responses to Comments A-1 COMMENTS STATK OF CAl.lfOR.NIA GoVERNOR'S OFFICE o/PLANNlNG A.1\JD R.EsEAR.CH S'l'ATE C!.BARINotlOUSE AND l'UNNING UNrr EDMUNI) C: &•O\Y)i JR. Clol'aHO'II M..-c:h 15, 2016 Scoll Donnel! C-111 of c.rlsbud Pla,miJlg Dq,artman 1635 fnntday Avenue Carlsbad, CA ~..008-7314 Silhjt:a: VilJ.,gc ond Bffln6 Mnoler l'bn SCI-If: 2Gl6a21056 Dear Scan Dannel!: City of Carlsbad Ptarornng O \/15100 The Sl•lt Clearingl,ous,, .ubtnitted 11,c above "3llled M11igined Negmh-e Dcclar&1ion lu seleccr.d 11a1e ageoo,:s for review. On lbc enclosed Ooc:umc:ol Dcta11s Kcport plt=no<e lb1tt the Clcarin~ has listed 1ht:SU11cagcndcs fflall't\lieW<!d ~=docu:mcm. Thcmoiew~io4-closcd on March 14, 2016, Md lhe a>IOlllCtUS from the: :e,pondiDg a:e,,c:y (i"e$:) is (are) ...cla.cd. lrlhis cmmntiu poao,.gc is 11<>1 m crdcr, pl<:ase notify the Slate Clearilli;hause imnrii.,ll:l_y. !'lease rcf,r 10 the project's 1t11-digit Stttc Ckaringhoose number ii, l\m1TC cunesrondeooe so 1hat "" may respond promptly. l'~ rt01e 1h31 Sccticn 21104(c) w lhe Cali!omc, Public Rcsx~ Cock simcs Om: ~ A reoponsible or Oib-..r publk agaicy shllll only mau 5Ubstiiutive collUllfflts reo.,ardia:; those activi1ics invol-..::d ill a Jl'DiCQ "11icb are wit!, i11 an an,:, of expeni!c of the 3aoeocy or which arc required 10 be CDrTied OUl or approVti! by lhe agency, Tho..ecommcnu shall bcSllJlPll11-Cd by ,peciftc documem:slioo." Those c~.nts u~ forwarded fDr u."' In prq,:irir,g y<)l>r fuial cnvi.-onmcntlll doc11mm1. Should yon need more utforraaooo or clarification oflbe enclos,:d wmments, , .. , l"C<lltllDC'1d dull )'OU COlllllCt 1hc commenting age,,cy directly. This lener acknowledges tha: you 11'!,·e complied with tho Slate Clearingbousc rovicw rc(Jllircments for dmi cnvirm1men1al <io<·wneni,._ pW"SU3nl 10 100 califomia f.nYlt()lllllmW Qualit) Aci. Plea.o con1ae1 lhc Sia.IQ Ckaringboose ai (916) 445-0613 ,(you have aft)' quesiioas regarding the c:11vi1onmental ~•••" pm=. 1~00 101h S11!1!1 P.O. Box 3044 Sam11muo, C.1ifomfa 958U-3G« (916] 44>-0613 FAX (916)3D-J4H! WWl!oOjlf.cD,f;t" A-1 RESPONSES No response necessary. This is a letter from the State Clearinghouse (1) acknowledging circulation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review and (2) forwarding a letter received from the California Public Utilities Commission. Responses to CPUC's letter are provided in E-1 through E-2. RTC-1 COMMENTS Document Detalls Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCfflt 201602t056 Prr,joct Tllfe VIilage and Batrio tdesle< Plan I.Dad 4gency Carlsbad, Clly or Type MtlD l\ll1,g3led N<,g.i11v• Declaral,an Oa.scrlpOon PfCposed "' a ma$lef pan Jot !he c,t(s dovm:""'11 (Village) and Iha •cullt°"'I' adjacent Barrio, 1 ne VIiiage and lhnio are IOCIIIO<I al <he ~m mlgeol lhe c!IY-11\e planning a,ea Is m<Jt!jy deYeloped, a portion Is In the-Ccastal Zooe. Plan adopboo...,..; roquiro .,.v•ral discrellonary ~f'll"'Vi'ls. The proposed master plan con.sisls of a Vl'Slon pla11. a n,gulallng code, desgn guldefincg, end an appenllb( ihe plan proposes no detl'etopment. bu! lho .,..;.,r, portioll identifies an umber or ideas and cqed1Yos thal could be lmplenu,ro,,d upon IU!1her and separale analysis anc approval 'The proposal wout! repaca 1he cu-rent Villago Master Plan Md Design ManWI! and Iha general """ing dislt!CIS and 5landa,ds no,, as,picalllo in lhe Samo, Lead Agency Contact -Scocl Donnel Agency City Of car1slrad Phone 760-802-4618 email Address Pla,ring Department 1635 Faraday Avenu!! City carlsbad Project Location C<>unl)' San~ City Carlsb!>!I Region Lat I Long 33" 17 33" NI 11 r 20' s,-w Cross Slreels "'5, Carlsbad VIiiage Dllva PIIITCGI IVo, Township 12S Proximity to: Highways 78 Airpotf:S RaJ!9• ~.sw R.lhrays N"'1h County Traasit Dist W'11J!<Ways Buena Vista L.avoon, Pacifc Ocean Schools C"'1sbad USO School• Stara CA Zip 92008-7314 St-ctlon 1,1> Bau SB Land Use Mosl.l), commercial 8flCI rosidenlial. ZOIWl!I and Genaral P1iwt cle3ignation relled tl>e same. Projvct lssuas NI Quality, Ardlaeotog,c,..Hlsto!lc; Biological Rewurt:es; NolS<1: S.,v,er Capattty; T raffic/Clr<Uat01; Landu&e; Cumualiw, Ellecl-. ReY/eW/ng Resoones Agency; Departmenl of Boating 8'\d wate,ways; Cafif-Dmia Coaslal c~ AgMcies Oepanmenl of Fish and Vi/i:life, Region 5, DepBllmonlofRsb and Wildlife, Marine Roglon; Deperunent or Patlts and Reaeation; San Francis.:o Boy Coose,va11on ancl Development Comm!ssion: Depa,tmant ofWawRHOuroes: Cailomla Hlgt,wayl'alrot, Callrans. Cli$1rk:t 11:1vt Re= Board; Regional Waler Ouaity Conlrol Board. Region 9; Nafl\'1! Amencan Hetilage Commission; Pubic IJ!jijM Commission; state lallds Commf.sion Dall> Recahcd · 02112/2015 Slar1 of Ramw 02/12/2016 EndofRtNlew 03,114/2016 Nobl' Blanl(s In data f"'1ds restl1I from msuffici!nl inlormalal pto,Mad by lead age,,cy. RESPONSES RTC-2 PUBLIC UTll..ffiES COlolMlSSIOI. $cell Donnell City or Carlsbad P!aMing Department 1635 Far;,clay Avenu~ Car1$bad. CA 92008-7314 COMMENTS ~,Offbar~g~ HAR 0420lli STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Ro. SCHI 20160210S6 Carlsbad (SAN DIEGO) Vil?a9e 8l1d Bamo hJas'.er Piao -UMNO Dear Mr. Domell. Th& catromia l'llblic lJ6Jbes Comm.5$1()11 (Ccmm1$SIOo oc CPUC) has jwisdlclion CM!( !he safety ot lvgtlM!y-rail crossJogs (cro55lngs) rn Callfomb Commissmn apprOllal is re11uired lor coostrucllon « alteration ol Cfcssings. The Comm1ssian's RaJ CrOSSings all(! Engineef!r.g 9rand:t (RCEB) ls In receipt¢ the drall Mi?igaled ~ De::lerruion (W'JD) lo.r the CR}' o; C.ufsbad (City) ~ and Bania~ PfBn. This Master Ptiln affett, ,m area thal lru:luoes at-gr:ille-crossv,gs at both Grand AVenue (OOH! 026820X) and Csr1sllatl Vilag;;, Drive (DOTO 026821E), between Washington Street aoo Slate Street. Train ope,atlons aloll!J tills lradl 1rici'.Kle frelgh!, comm11ter, and pa~ ralroad service m speeds up to 90 1nlles per hou,. There are plans to~ a second railroad tr.,d:: along lhis conldor Wilhtn San Die:io _COl>nty. the Grand Avenue CI05Sl09 has lhe l\lghest runber cf 'pre~ accidents per year; based on !he Federal Rallroad Admlnl!iltatloris Web Accident Preci::tion System. The Carlsbad Village Ol1vo c,ossmg is 1 s"' an Che same 1st. Draft lluslr.rtion exccq>1s from Vitage and Barrio ~ Plan. Pa11 4 -Appendbc. 111 tile Master Plan. ca,'lsbat! 1/llago DriYe 1$ dcsc.1oed as; ·ooe of th .. main coonectklns.from 1he test ot Carlsbad and t-!> to lhe \/ill.~ aoo bead, rron1. .• lnSlead of orly funcfioning as the pnmary thoroughfare wd'1in the Virago. It can become" ma,o ~eel -a pl;K:e where peop:e feel COM'~ dilling, shopping, walking, cycling 1111d rn,,w,g • For Grand AVcnue. the Master ?Ian dlscusres "'11111 lmportance ar tile t.•n-bl:>d< segment botw~n tho ra1saacl tracks and Roosevelt Slroot" am! refeis has a cul!Hess • reswat streer alo,,g dial segmen1. As long as the at.grade cross.itgs ramaln. fl 15 ailk:al that too sllfety mreds are considered !or .ill roadway -users al the uadls. The plan discusses options for reoorrfl!Jl.lJilbon of the roadway ir,c1<Jdirlg "ierncwal or the RESPONSES RTC-3 Scott Donnell. City of Carlsbad Page 2 of2 Ma.rch 4, 2016 COMMENTS landscaped medlan island" and addition of ·street trees of a consistent type and dhnensfon•. This sort of ch3I1Qe can potenUally impact safety al a rail crossing. Raised medians and curbs provide channertzation that may dis<:OUri!Qe motorists from circumventing gale anns al a rail crosslog. Street lrees near a railroad CfOSsing can potentially reduce vistbllity of warning devlces or approachtog tralns. CPUC staff strongly supports continued consideration of a trericii for lhe rallroad tracks. The construction of a trench would be consistent with the CPUC's stated policy on reducing the number of at-grade crossings, wh11e also supporting the plan's goals lo maximize connectivity in the area CPUC staff is avallable Lo discuss potential modillcation of lhe al-grade crossings. If you tiave any questions. please contact Kevin Schumacher al (415) 310-9807. Sincerely,_ Jr·v·i-KenChiang. P.E.· Utifilies E119ineet Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Dlvislon caritomia PubUc Ulifities Commission CC: Stale Cleari,ghouse Don Filippi, NCTD RESPONSES RTC-4 3-1 COMMENTS STA'.l"E OF CALU'ORNJA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND ~EARC11 STATE CUWUNGUOUSEAND PU,NNJNG UNIT M.a-c:b 17. 2016 SQlU Douncll City of Carlsboo Plunnlng Depanmcn1 1635 Faraday A""lluc C:irbbcad. CA 9200g.7314 S...t,jecl: Vil!uge md Bmfo MJIStor J'b>t sen.-: 2016021056 City of Carlsbad Tho Sta1.e Cl:an~ submiued the abovt 1:am~d Mitig:,tcd Neg;aln" Ott.l11ratioo to sdcct.od slll!C agcnclcs for review. On 1be cnclo5ed Do<:umttl( Detaib Report pleaoe note lha1 lhe C"'3ring110USe bas li+tcd lbc <role agencies lhat rcYicwcd )'01lf dot:Ument. Th< miew period t loscd au M~rd! 16. 2016, and tlic C<JmmCIIIS from I.he rcspm,dmg ap,cy ("lOS) u (are)~ If this «>nnnoal p:,dwge b not in ordu, ploase nolify tbcStotc Clcacini:]>ou:,c lllll!leGtatcly. P.lcasc r<fc< to die projecl's r.:n-dii;_it s,~~ Clearin&f,ou,m number in lliruto com::spondmc:e so 11131 we moy n:spond promplly. Plta5" note 1ml S<:c:1ion :?l f(M(~} oflllc Californi,, Pnblic Resow= Codo 51:11!:S !hat: "A n:spclllSIDl<' or other public agency shall °"'Y mae subslanth-e comm<:oU r,:gnnfuir, those a.ori•ilic:s u1volv..'CI in e projoc1 which...., within :m JU<a of~of(be agm:yor -.nicharc requin.,d lb be cunicd Oil! or 'l'JlfO'l'Oll by the agency. Those == $ball be 5'1pp,)ltcd by .spcci!ic documuntion," l'heoe ,-.ommmlS an: forwarded fur !!SC in fl'cp,ru>g your liool ~D~al documem. Sho•kl you n<!ed more information or cll'lrif,c;,tion of the eoclaocd <OJIIJilCDt$, .. ~ =~ lh:t.t you -•ct ,he, commtll1ing agency din:ctly. This leUt:r :!Cb,o,-icdg,:s tlw JI"" h:,v,, compliod Wl\l1 the Stale Cleadngbou,c n:view requiremtmt!. for dnifi CllVUUUDOOW doa11DC'Ol5, p<JffU3,i( to lht Cili!omio Enviretnmeilllll Qualily Act. Pie.isl: CQl\llltl tl,e St.'lle CIOll'inghowe 11 (916) .. 45-061 J lfyoo lint: any questions reg;inlin,1; 1hc ,..,V'imruneot11I n»iew pn>eCSl<. HOO 10th Sttttl P.O. Bax~ SacnmNitc. C&loomia 95812-J.O« (fl6) 445-G6l3 FAX (916) 323-301& """"'l'r~v B-1 RESPONSES No response necessary. This is a letter from the State Clearinghouse acknowledging circulation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan MitigatedNega tive Declaration to selected state agencies for review and the close of the state review period (February 16, 2016 through March 16, 2016). RTC-5 COMMENTS Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2016621056 Project TIiie Village and Bamo Master Plan Load Agency Carlsbad. City ol Type 'MNO Mil,ga!ed NegalMI Oeclatation OcscripUon Proposed Is a mas1er plan for lhe Olly's """"110wm (Village) and Die soultlerl)' ndjaceol Barno. Too Village ;ind Barrio are localed al the ru,,11,-vew,m edge ol U,e City Tllil planM19 area ,s mostly developed: a pol'lion is kl the Coas1al Zone Plan adopbon ""1IJld re<p1e se""'81 cliscrnlianary approVllls. ~ proposed masi;,r plan consisis c( a VISio<l plan. a regua1lng a>do, design guidelines, end an appendix. Toe plan proposes no de\lelopmen1, bot lhe vision porlion idenlifies a n umbe< of Idea~ and ol>j,!!divel. lhal add be an;,lemented upon further and ""p.an!le arullysls and approval. Toe pr,,posaJ would replace Ille ct.nrenl Village IJas11:t Plan and Design Manual and the geoernl ml1"'9 dislricls and sloodafds now aJJl'licablc hi lhe Banio. Lead Agency Contact Name Seo~ Oonnell Agancy City of cansbad Phone 760-ti02-'1618 emall Address. Pfamlng Department 1635 Faraday Avenue City Carlsbad Project Location Cou11ly San o;.go Clly Cansbad Region Cross Streets 1-5, Cansl>ad Village Ome Lari Long 33• 9' 33" H 1117° 20' 55" W P,uc:olNo. Fa:t. Stille CA Zip 92000-7314 Tawnshlp 12S Range 4,5W Sacl/on 1,6 Baff SB Proximity to: Highw~ys 78 Airports Raf/ways Nolll Coull!)• Transit Dist Waterways Buena Vi:sla Lagoon. Paoilic Ocean Schools Carlsbad USO Schools Land Use Mas#y commeiaal and reslClcnlial. Zonlo!! and General Plan oesign;,11"'1 reffed Ole same. Prc]<x;t tss= Nz Oualily: Arc:llaeOloglc-Hi$lollc: Bialogicat Resoorces; Noise: sewer Capacily. Traliic/Cln:, .. ta1Jon; LandU5e; CumulalJYe Elleds Reviewing Rc_,..,_Agency: Oepanment of Boating and Wale:v!WfS! Calijoml• Coa,ital CommisSIOO, Ag<HJCies DeparljMrll ol 1"1&h and Wlldlm,, Region 5; DeP"'lfnenl of F'rsh and ""1ltllfe. Marit10 Region: Oepartmenl of Parts and Rea.,alion; San Francr.ico Bay ConseMlllal and Oewlopmenl Commission: [)epaJlrn<m1 or W~er Re,:ources; Cal:fomla liig~ay Palrot: caltrans, Oistri<:111; All Resouroos Soard; Regional W~e<Quulity Coolfo! Board. Region 9; tlafr.•e American Heritage Commission: Ptlbic: Utii.t.oes Commission; State la:lds Commission Dale Recciv~d 02116/2016 Sts;n of Rev/ow 02/16/2016 Errd of Rav/r,w 03116/2018 RESPONSES RTC-6 :-1 COMMENTS & ¥ STATE OF ChLlFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFPTCE of PUNNING AND RFsEARCH STATE CLEARINGU0US&AND Pl.ANNING OJlflT l!DMIJND G.. B.R0WN ,IIL G<WEU0ll. Moreb 17,2016 ScoltPomell City ofCarlsood Pl;mn~ Dep11rmmn 1635-Fuaday A,-.n~ Cnrtsbad. CA 92011&-'731~ Sub;cct: V illa:ge en:t Suric Mllslcr Pliln sett,, .2016021 o'6 Dc3r" Scott DooncD: Cit" ., of Carlsbad 41,./ '1 The t:llclosecl eommem (•) an yam-Mitig,il0d NCglili"" Decl-.r.rtioo """(..-.:n) received by the Slate Clcarill~housellftcrth~cod oflltestitc rc\icwpmocl, \\ilicb tlosodoo Mm 16,2016. Wclll't f°"""'11ing Illes• commcnl5 ro you bcc3use lh<!)' pmv,do mfonmuon or raise issiu,s that !bookl be addressed in_y<K11 fuul cn•itOU1ntt1trsl documenl. 'l'ho California E.nviroamcrual Quality Aa docs not requlrc .Lead Agcncic:s to rapond to IBIC COllllllOllts.. Howe""', '"'c~c )'011 LO mcorporau those addillooal c<ttnmCOIS m1D yoor tu,.I ""virOll!Dffltul clocmnc:nL :md to conmco-them prior 10 taking final actioo co lhcr.ro~ proj«L Please OOIIUIQ lhc Sitle Clow'i•gbousc a1 (916) 44>«>13 ;r you havc: 111!)' qm:>lioll.l ~ the cav~nt:11 ~-proccu. lf)/011 ba-c II quc:Afoo n:g,irdlplJ tbe abo'te-lJi;lmeCI proje«. plense refer to fbc: tm-d1gicStn1eCloam,ghou.10 rwn,bor ('.!016021056) wtl"lt COGIIU:ring lhisofficc. S~inc=ly, ·¥r-• 1~ DlrcclOt, State: ~ UOO IOlb St=i P.0.-Box 30ff Sacnmento. C.lifomia 9.s&ll-»tt (916)"~" FAX (916'132.3-1018 _,,.opr.a,gc>Y RESPONSES C-1 No response necessary. This letter from the State Clearinghouse simply forwards to the city comments from the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that were received after the close of the state review period. Responses to Caltrans' comments are provided in H-1. RTC-7 COMMENTS STl!IIFC!:CAI lfU!HJ,\;:''J\UfP!Nk' ~(AJ[JJlA".S?QH'TA1~A(D:S:," DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11 l'LANNTN<l DlV!SlON ~OSOTAY~ ~BEr. M.S.l>tD SAN DIEGO.CA 9?110 PHONE (~19)6'lt-l,960 FAX 1619)f~U?99 TTY 111 March 16. 20! 6 Mr. Scott.Donnell City of Carlsbad 1635 f:11111dayAvcnuc Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 Dear Mr. Domell: Gol&!!JorlOlfi'r.eo,~&~ HAR 112016 STATECi.£ARrNGHOUSE fflMlNnQ.JPQ!\'Mk ~ 11-SD-5 PM VAR Village and Barrio M:ister Pion MND/SCH#20l6021056 Tue-C:ilifomi:L Department ofTmnsportmion (C111111lDS) rcceivt:11 a COl!Y orthe Draft loiti:tl Study1Mitiga1txl NetlJlti"e Declaration forlhe proposoo V'tl.!111,~ and Burrio Mastct Pion IOCll!cd n::ar Interstate 5 (1-5}. Cllltrans l1llll the followmg.oomments: Pon:ntia11y the V1sio11 of the mnstcr plan idcotifics n number or proposed devcfopmcnt idt::ts lhal could imp3tl-statr facilities, but does not contain specific demit Any fururc-projcct specific devclopmco.duu maJ imP3ct-Sb11e faciliiles should bcappropriJllcly. analyzed at thar time. If you have Ull)' qu~1ions, please con!ael Kimbeily Dorlson. orthe Caltnms Development Review Brand,, at (619) 688-2510 Ol" by c,.mlli!scntloldmberly.dodJ;On@doLca.gov . ..... ..,, .... -. ...-""'<1{,cb/k_..,._ ,.,,'IWIIIKuiO,.O:;:w..,i;.'f~Mt/li1-.Nlfty'"" RESPONSES RTC-8 )-1 COMMENTS From: John Bailev [mailto:jbaiJey@tblglaw.com j Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:47 AM To: Scott Donnell Cc: Jason King; Austin Sliva; Kathi LaCroix subject Village & Barrio Nov. 201.5 Master Plan/ Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (12/12/15) Scott. T have completed my initial review of the approx.imalcly 75 page "Notice of Completion & EnvironmentaJ Document Transmittal" dated February U, 2016 ("Em1ironmcntal Declaration") relating to the propose<I November 2015 Village & Barrio Master Plan ("Master Piao"). While the Environmental Declaration appears to co,•er many of the required general statutory issues in a somewhat "boilerplate" manner, it does nol specifkaUy address, in any meaningful way, the potentially significant negative effects relating lo transportation, traffic, parking, noise, air quality, a11d quality of life issues lhal could result lrom the "reduced" parking standards proposed in the Master Plan as raised in my December 22, 2015, letter addressed to you, Austin Sih•a and Jason King, a copy of which is attached. In fact, unless Jam missing something, there is not one mcnlion of any potentially significant negative impacts that could be caused by the "reduced parking standards" currenlly proposed a~ amendments to lhe Carlsbad M.unidpal Code as set forth in Part 2 of the Master Plan. Although Table 1 ("Demonsti-ation of General Plan CollSistency") pages 40 thru 44 of the Environmental Declaration vaguely touches upon these is.sues, Che overall document itself essentially summarily concludes, without any real discussion or analysis, Chat there will not be any significanl negative impacts by tl1ese proposed reduced parking standards on the Village and Barrio communities. J stiU strongly feel that before any of tbese proposed "substandard" parking reductions are adopted by the Master Plan, some actual parking.studies of other beach cities surrounding Carlsbad as well as the Village and Barrio residential neighborhoods themseh•es need to be conducted to assess the tTue and foreseeable environmental impacts (positive or negative) on the Village and Barrio as suggested in my December 22nd correspondence. Somehow 1 received the impression at and after the community meetings heJd in December 2015 that on-street parking studies were in process and/or going to be conducted io the Barrio and Village residential neighborhoods. ti was my belief that these studies would he used to a~sess the current parking demands so an actual evaluation could be made as to the realistic impact these proposed "reduced" parking standard$ wou]d have on the communrty. from my reading of the Environmental Declaration I obviously bad the wrong impression and/or understanding. At this point in time l strongly believe that city staff and their consultants need to delete 01 RESPONSES The commenter suggests that the "reduced" parking standards proposed in the November 2015 Master Plan draft may have potential negative impacts relating to transportation, traffic, parking, noise, air quality and quality of life issues. It is suggested that the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration {IS/MND) circulated for public review in early 2016 does not meaningfully address these potential impacts. Additionally, the commenter advises that the Master Plan (November 2015 draft) propose no changes to parking requirements until the completion of parking studies, including the analysis of parking requirements of other beach cities surrounding Carlsbad. Comments are contained in an email received during the public review period for the Draft IS/MND and an attachment to the email, a letter dated December 22, 2015, that provides comments on the Master Plan. The IS/MND adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan. As noted in the IS/ MND, the proposed Master Plan would not increase residential densities or substantially revise land use patterns, factors that could intensify development, change traffic patterns, or increase traffic. Regarding air quality and transportation/traffic, the IS/MND concludes, based on future development under the Master Plan, that there would be "no impact" or "less than significant impacts:' Regarding noise, the environmental document concludes that transportation noise associated with Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Boulevard, 1-5 and the rail corridor (as opposed to parking noise) would exceed acceptable levels for many of the land uses expected to occur within the Master Plan and proposes appropriate mitigation. "Quality of life" as cited by the commenter is broad and subjective and does not require specific consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Further, analysis of parking RTC-9 COMMENTS RESPONSES D1 adequacy is also not a CEQA requirement and, therefore, no analysis of cont. the potential effects of "reduced parking standards" or a significance determination regarding this issue is provided. Parking is addressed in Item X(b) of the 15/MND in Table 2 (originally Table 1 in the Draft IS/MND) as it relates to consistency of the Master Plan with the General Plan provisions and policies. General Plan Policy 2-P.75 states, "address parking demand by finding additional areas to provide parking for the Village and beach areas, and by developing creative parking management strategies, such as shared parking, maximum parking standards, "smart" metering, utilizing on-street parking for re-use of existing buildings, etc." The Master Plan is consistent with this policy, as it allows for the provision of additional public parking, including through shared use of existing parking lots or development of new parking in the railroad right-of-way, and emphasizes management of the overall parking system. Comments address the November 2015 Master Plan draft parking standards and the lack of a study to support the plan's parking requirements overall. The January 2018 draft of the Master Plan provides revised parking standards based on a comprehensive parking study, prepared since circulation of the Draft 15/MND. The parking study identified existing parking conditions in the Village, Barrio, and nearby beach area and reviewed the parking requirements and strategies of eight peer cities along California's coast. This analysis produced a Parking Management Plan (PMP) that the City Council accepted in September 2017. Completion of the PMP was a key reason to produce a third (January2018) Master Plan draft. The accepted PMP and related information are available on the city's website, http:// www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/parf<ing_study.asp. The Village and Barrio Master Plan parking standards and strategies are based on the accepted PMP. The Master Plan would implement the parking management recommendations provided in the PMP and would encourage adequate and efficient parking to maintain access to the business district, residential areas, and coastal zone. Revisions to the IS that describe the PMP and highlight its goals and key recommendations and strategies as they relate to the Master Plan are included in the Final 15/MND. The PMP documented existing parking supply within the Village and Barrio and adjacent beach areas. A key finding of the PMP as stated on page 6 of the document is "the RTC-10 COMMENTS RESPONSES D1 [parking] study did reveal that the current and future parking supply is cont. adequate to meet demand if the parking system, as part of the larger transportation system, is actively managed." Annual parking surveys are an example of active management and are a Master Plan policy (see Policy 1.5.2 B.9 on page 1-15} and implementation action (see Table 5-1 under "parking management.") Further, the PMP on page 98 recommends "implement the parking requirements stated in the Draft Village and Barrio Master Plan." This reference is to the April 2016 draft of the Master Plan. Parking requirements in the January 2018 draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan are similar to those in the April 2016 draft. In addition, the parking study analyzed the parking requirements and strategies of eight peer cities along California's coast -Dana Point, Encinitas, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Monterey, San Clemente, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Monica. The intent of conducting the peer city reviews was to (1) identify strategies that similar cities are using; (2) determine whether they are appropriate for the city; and (3) if they are appropriate, decide how they can potentially be adapted to meet the needs of the Village, Barrio, and beach areas. Comparing parking requirements among the eight cities and Carlsbad also was part of the peer city review. The PMP reported "the parking requirements for residential and hotel developments in the City of Carlsbad are comparable to the other peer cities. However, the City of Carlsbad requires more parking for commercial and office land uses than some peer cities do." City of Carlsbad parking requirements used in the comparison included those from the April 2016 Master Plan draft. See "Best Management Practices-Peer City Review," beginning on PMP page 48. Finally, some key differences between the November 2015 Master Plan draft upon which the comments were based and the January 2018 Master Plan draft are summarized below: RTC-11 COMMENTS D1 cont. Standard Parking for one and two-family dwellings Guest parking for multiple-family dwellings in the Barrio area Converting use On-street parking RESPONSES November 2015 draft Two spaces per dwelling No guest parking requirement If infeasible due to on-site constraints, parking need not be added for use conversions, even if the new use has a greater parking requirement Permitted in some districts to count toward parking requirements January 2018 draft Two spaces per dwelling in a garage Guest parking required at rates equal to those in the Zoning Ordinance (BP and BC districts only} Conversions to uses with greater parking requirements must provide 50 percent of the additional parking need either on-site or through other means, such as in lieu parking fees Not permitted anywhere to count toward parking requirements, although a parking credit maybe realized (except in the BP and BC districts) for the creation of on-street spaces RTC-12 D-lL Jnt. D·{ ~{ COMMENTS any proposed code revisions to the current puking st:aodards from the J>roposed J\'lastcr Plan untiJ thtSe studies are actuaJly completed. Any mitigated negnm·e declaralion needs to r"Hlistic;tlly addrus tbe potentially significant negative impacts these proposed reduced parking standards will have on U1e sired parking, noise, traffic. congestion, afr quality and the overa.U quality or life for the residents of the Barrio and Village communities. Jt would be greatly appreciated if you would please immediately pa._ss on this email togdhcr with a copy of my attached 12/22/15, letter to ihc "Slate Clearing BoustH in Sacramento where you filed the En,'ironmental Declaration as well as to the Coastal Commission and any otbcr City, State or Fe<lel'1ll govcmmeotaJ body or agency who must review or approve the EnvironmentaJ Declaration. Thank you in advance for your aolicipated courtes)' and cooperation in this regard. At your earliest opportunity would you also please lei me know whtn you aotitipate publishing and distributing the proposed final dnft of the Master Plan for fu.rtbt"r public comment and Planning Commission review and appro,,al. Thanks again, John ... PU\ASENOTll NEW OIAILADDRESS A.',0 FIRM NAM!'..,, Joll• Baik:y The lld<;r l.cp!C""'J• }Sjjl4 i..a, Brin<So<td1, Swt< B M•ri<ll,CA!ll:Slil (1151)'.J0'-751i1,0mu ('JSI) 30'-l57lFu ituih-, ,. 'bW;rw 1na1 COXFIDRl'11AUTY NOTlO'.; TIie io!onn>llao -in tllU dtttronic 111.llil -is <Ollliiklllilll hllonm"'lon int<OCl<d only rot Ult .... ultt.cindhfdu.ler mill} IO 1,11,hooa ii b Ul1tltdedtobt.Qf1"Uttd. Uuenduflt.hif mm:atc,iJ.1.Membf.raf Utl St;a<..B.art,I Calironlia. udO.i C'9t.llltnll naa,..bepri,:ilc:Jcil hvnl tllJlldo,.urt: ~tbeA-Ul)l'll('f Qlcm l'rhikg.r. tkAODnX')' WOf'II:: ,...aett Pffliliq;t,.lbe: Ri;r,1111 (/f trn'litr "°"'llllti! io tl>t c.liCt>rnia CooitilOlilon, aad O<bcr riJl,h ..... prhiic:i,1 !Ml 1...,.Jod< dlsclos,,r< or "''""'°"ial Womaliom. The. infonnlliofl ill thb .,...,. -a l>t p.-.t<1:1<d •1 the Rl<aronic O,.,ml&lliaoom Prir.ocy Art, 18 llSC S<dioM ?51 ,._::.S:.!I, lfll•• ...-ref till, ,.,....~ I> no1 a .. llllmiltd m:ipiml.~..,""' bcn:l>y ne«>al a.a, .. yt1mrmlutl.., di,JributionorQ1>fe,1c,(1ru,,..,....,u;clllloa;s,1ridty JW111,i1,lkd. er,.., tuin rttt11,d lhitUlllllll\laic:IUO.. ia e:n-or-.ptc:lJ!t immrd.ltldyft0li(t'1br1011lcrh.rrerun t--m:ailor:u: ibettfq>,hooc..1wmbuabM"T.:mdtkJc:tethc <i<i,:itul-· RESPONSES D-2 This comment requests the city forward the email (containing these comments) and its attachment to the State Clearinghouse, the Coastal Commission, and any other government agency that must review or approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is not appropriate to send the email and attachment to the State Clearinghouse as it is responsible only for distributing environmental documents to state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions for review and comment. Further, no agency except for the city must review or approve the environmental document. The city forwarded the commenter's email and attachment to the Coastal Commission on March 2, 2016. The Coastal Commission will also receive a copy of both as part of the local Coastal Program Amendment packet submitted to the Commission following an approval of the Village and Barrio Master Plan by the City Council. D-3 The city released the third draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan in January 2018. The commenter received an email notification of the plan's release. RTC-13 COMMENTS THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP 2'iOJ4 Las Srisae. Ro.>d Soulh. Suit" B Mumeta Callfcirnia 92562 felephooe: {95"1) 304-7566 F,,oim;ic,-($SIi 30HS7l Scott Donnell, Senior l'laoncr City of Carlsbad Communiiy and Economic Development 1635 Faracby Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008--7)14 Ausrin Silva. AJCP. As,ociatc Pl:inner City ofCarlslxu.l Planning Oi\'iSiOfl 1635 F.irndny A,•enuc C:1.rlsb11cl, CA 92008-7314 Jason King Do•cr Kohl & Partners 1571 SunS<!l Drive Coral G::i.blcs, FL 33143 December 22. 2015 Kc: Carlsbad Zoning/Village & Barrio ~1a5tcr Pl.111 f>aciftc Wind Project (SDP JS-18) Dcnr Scon, AUMin and Ja.<on: Vi., ,:r,1:1il ~nd U.S. mail Via email 1111d U.S. 1113iJ Via email anrl U.S, mai) As all of)'OU ::tlrcady know, my wife and 11,aveowncd n home in !he Barrio since Fcbn,ary2010, and hn\'C an inte~t in lite issu~ raised cone1:ming the abov-e referenced rnauc11,. During October !l1roull)1 early NO\·cmber 2015, I co111pldcd on inw:stigatiot1 a11d r"'1icw of the rclcvam inform31ion on the hisiory. conditions, status, lilturc plan.~ nnd visions foriheBarrio and Villa1,'¢ that were referenced in 311d/or available on tlli! Cilyi; website_ i11eluding but 1101 limilo:d to, 1hc: {I) •oarrio Cari~bad Community Cohesion Report dated June 2008. lnlor$l;ite 5 North Coast Corridor Projt>et"; t2} "Cerlsbod Community Vision/November 2009"; (3) tJ1., 2116113 "City ufCarlsbad-A.gcnd.l Bill" and all rcl:llCd <:i.hibilli and Pl.:uming Commission minules, etc.; (4)th" •t..aod Use Conc-cp15,,, J311ua,y2012" for lhe City; and (S) lhc 1214/14 •Ground Work Toward a Vil!.:igcand 133rrio Master Plan ... " is$u~ by Dover. Kohl & Partners. I lwv,: now rc:ad though the roughly 250 1>3b-C dmrt oft~ November 2015. "Villai;e and Barrio i\.l.lstcrP.l:m" ("Plan") thai was m:i<lc public inornround the secooo wcckofNo,·cmbcr2015. I alsoaUfnd~-d some public fommsmcl commw1ity meetings on December IS. 16, and 17 ""'--re Scou. members of Dover, Kohl & PartnCT$ nod/or olher-amsuhams prc-scntt:.-d tJ,e r1an llJld respo11dcd to SOm<, questions I and Olhor community members bad con<:eming certain 3SJ>CCLS oflhe Plan. RESPONSES RTC-14 COMMENTS Pagc2 Doccmbcr 22. 2015 As I mcnrio11cd :u 1he,;e l.lecc:mbcr2015 conununiiy1m ...... 1inll$. thc.n,~n: a fow mrun areas of conctm I havcreg:irding 1l1cdra11 Pl.in 1ha1 we ne.:d to address relating to: a) reduced p;,ridug requirements for nc" developments: b) lite Piu;ific Wind Projea vic:·m;:d in light of Ille Pl.in ;:nd some ideas rcgardini; pedes1rian nnd bicycfc a~-ss points: and c) !be projects lhal will be ocldcd to lhe "Mfnor Review Permit" tha1 only require the rcvi..-w ond approval nf me Ciry Pllmncr. A11hou_gh 1h.: above concerns were touched upon in the community forunts. 1h,:n:, was really no opportuni1y to3dJrt:S$thcSt issues in depth. Thcrcrore I will disc= these issut:sattd concerns in more derail bt:fow o.ud tht:11 provide yon" itlt my co1111nenb;. suggestions nnd rcconur.cndalions rcganling 1hc drnfr Plan. PARKING REQ(JIRDtENTS ,\. C:3i~11nu ,'\nd Fu1urc Need~. Preliminarily. as mentioned by Seem :i couple of times 31 the community meetings.. 1his is a .. lo,1g term" plo11 and will probably llOI be rc-visi1~d again for 20 or mon: )cars. For 1h:it n:-.iso11 ak>II<!, it is eiuremely in,por111m that we gc:1 il right and 110I rc_pliC3lc the s11.mc mist>kcs of neig/ibori11g b,.-ach citic::s. The drafl Plan docs not mention °' discus;.~ ii, any meaningful wny the gc1JeraUy accq1tetl prem isc lillll Soolhem California residems nn: lllill, by ncc;essity, car-4:pcndcnt aOll seldom utili7.c mass tr311sit for C\'Cl)'day tmvel. 'fhcn: is a notation in the Pl:in thm through 2008 to 2012 • ... 85% oiwori:ers 16+ 1,-.:110 "orl; hy car ... • and ~end " ... 28.6 min111es lrnVel lime to work ... • (See PIM Part I, pg. 1.13) without any rcol disc1tssion or projccrions on whether or not this trend will im,rc:ise.. decrease 11r stay lhe same. In foci. ir, 2008-2009 less 1han 4% oflhe Son Dics;o-Cadsb.1d-San Marco,, wurl. fore~ us,.'tJ public 1mnsportm ion to gel to wori: {Google.: Public. 1'rnnsporta1,on Usage Amoog U.S. Workers; 2008 and 2009 October 20 IO. U S Cemus Bureau. p:ige6). As or20 I J. abou1 4.1 ¾ of Sun Diego's woiti11g popu111ion uml lhcpublic Transit System [seeAndrcwKeans{h1tp;//www.voiccofsandicgo.orglau1horfa1Klrewl(cn1tslAngust 6,.2013). Ju 201 J. there wasanestimarro populntion in theentirc92008 zip code forCarlsb~d uf ~bou126,536, In 2013. the "mode of transportation 10 "'Olk in Zip Code9200S" w3s: a) 79.23/.drO\"C "aaralorn:: b) 6.0-/4 carpooled; c) 0.3% molon:yclc;and d}8.~~workcd at home. Only2.6¾t0t.'lk lhebus(D.8"/4)N 1rain!$ubway (!JI%) (sec Googk ~enrc.h: ·~noos zip codcdc1;1iled profile city d:ua.cocn· pg. 2-0). In other wurds, 85.5% ofCarlsb:id"s populatitin in 92008 u1ilra private vehiclcsormotorc)-clcs t<>gct to work ,-crsus 2.6% who use public cr:msiL My overall iu1prcssion "a,; lhal noneufllie n:toiood con,rult:mis that WO<'kcd "ilh 1!te City to draO 1hc: Plan \\tloancodcd t.hescDccc:mber2015, public forums do nm cfispute1hegenenl oc=yoftheabove population figure$ :mdfor1he pen:cntages of residents who commu1c" ilh priv:1111 vehicles vcr>11S those who use ma,-s transit. It is my undcrstimdirrg tlmt the Barrio. as of °"ccmber 5.2012, already h.i<l about 1,272 ~isiing =idential dwelling unit~ ond that number could potentially increase by a:,mhcr 759 units under 1hc2'l6/l 3 "City of C:irlo;bad-Agcnda Bill" npprovcd by the City Collncil C~e E.~liibil 8, pg.. 159 hem ,\, P'!'· 3 to 2126/13 Agenda nil!}. RESPONSES RTC-15 P-1ge3 Dt!!:ember22. 2015 COMMENTS Assumi11s that :ibout ooe-1hirJ (252) of lhe 101nl (759) pr<tject<'fl uruls ure one-bcdroot1t. aod IW<Mhirds (507) cousisi oflwo plus-bedroom unit.~ the p.irlini; needs under 1be e:.isti11g code ('21.44.020 Table,\) would require I ,392 residcut and 190 ,•isitor( 1.582 total) additional ixuking,spac.cs lo atk-qt1ately accomrnocbte 1hc c~p..-cled rn:-ed and demand. Under the drdfi Plan's new prt,i)OISCd cod,; structure. 1ncrc would be no rcqoircd visi1orp.,rt.;ing :md only 1,0IJ tOllll on-site resident p;lrl;ing spaces n:qmred 10 serve dcmand. lfnfortu11a1c(y.1l1e 1\.-sidcntial strec1 ~rnin_g in dtc [l:trrio is already ra.~cd 10 iis Urnits. The addition ofanothcr po1cn1ial 759 units withoul requiringdc\'clopcrs 10 provide sufficient ~on-site• resident nn!I mi tor p:irking ,,;111101 only render 1hc street fl!l!king in the ai-.,a completely imuiequ:ue to serve the fC;Sidc111s. bu1 tmmanngcablc M well. It is not believed thar the current commuter percenl:ig,.."'S in tlie VilJa~ aod Barrio are any different lr<'IYI lhe 85¾ aveJ11&e throughout 1he rest of 1hc 92008 :tip code; no.-is then-ai:y indie:ttion that these pen:enugcs will chang,: in any significant way ova-the ncx1 couple of dccooe:s; Furt!termoro with Ilic c:1.peeced :lddi1io:1 ofaJ1uthcr 7S9 units in the ll;irrioalonetherc is clearly nol onl)' 3 pre-sent bul a future need 10 ol lca,--t 11i.iintai11 (no1 n:duc") the cum:nl residcnt and visitor parking space. rcqu~1c,11s for new dcvclopm1:111s h, the Village and Barrio. Merely bec:lw..: Dover, Kohl & Prutners anJ/or the other city cousuJtanL< 111.1)' ha,c a J.:siw lO induce .:,r incentiviz.cdc,-<elop,m; to build in the V[tlagc and Barrio ~-s rl<lt mean parkir.g wiil no1 be n•-eded 10 serve the: residents who will and do liw in these new and cxi,,-1ing. <f.:,vclopments.. I fi"nly believe tl1e drafl Plan's proposed "Mobility t\lana~'dllent District" should be lhe emit)' d"sign.at<l<l to=·icwthese popola1ion movc,mcntsonan ongoing basis. lfand when these rcsidcnrcommutcr !rends realign 10 meaningfully shill the now lopsided lnl= from priv:,(e vehicles to mass transit, 1he Vill3g" IIJld Barno parking standards can be revisited and rcX!uci=d or modili•"ll acco.ding toc:'<ptttcd need. Howe,..,,-. for nnw ""d the foreseeable lulltrc, all new dc,,clopmcnts should be deJ.igncd and .:onstnn:tcd to Rcomrnodate the ,tctu;,l projected parking needs for each projecL 13. Qrowine. Parking Problems And Con~s. Pru 1icul~rly troublesome is one of th(; pn:ntlscs of the Pim that. "P:id:ing should be m:maged and Levcr.iged l11rou~hout lhc Village and B:mio. ,ind 1101 mxe,;sarily solved for each individual parcel or business" (Plan Pan I. item 4, pg. l.J). Although this stucmco1 indirectly nc.knowlcdges that parking LS a concern in the commui,ity. 11,.. Pla11 essentially dism~ 1bc c1111e1:m ~nd inMead leverages th~ issue ,tS a lbiwn 10 implemenl oodcrcnsirn1srocnC0Urage futuredcvclopmen~ with little orno regard fQ<' th<tn,,gati.....:, imp.ietssueh .substandard design n,quil'l.>mcnts for thes,: n<.-w dcvclopmcms will ,mposc upon thecurrcnl and fu1ure residents and busin<eSs owners in th~ Village and U:trrio communities. In rac1. I recall that aliout 70% of all Ilic people who al!Cflded the Dceember 2015 community mcclings uff umcd tha1 die l:tclc of !)3rking is a growing ooocem for the residents and business owners in the Village :md &rrio. llowcvcr. ins1cad of establi1hing policies that will slow down or prevent 1be problems from getting "on;e., the Plan aetu~II)· proposes new developmcnl51andurdsth(lt will only worsen lhc:iln,;i(ly difficult sln:et p.vking shortages 1hn1u~1out the entire area and. in pur1ic11l.<r, the BruTio and the ri:sidemi:i.l nc1g.hbod1oods that surround Ilic downtown Vitiage. It appears to be sor11ewh"1 disir,gc,nuou, 10 propose lhe ~lishrncnl of a "Mobility Mw1:1gcm1:nt Dis1ric1" to oversee and 11L1>rnige porl:ing "hen the over.ill recomm~nd:?tions in the Plan :ire to 111:iterinlly RESPONSES RTC-16 COMMENTS Pagc4 December 22, 20 I 5 reduce the •on site" rarkin!; sp,'1Ce requirements below 1>11,11 Is :ic1u.illy needed 10 ackqu;itcly sen~ now de, elop111enls: \Vhic:h in !um will C'leate an 2n:a wide scarcity of slreel parld11g which is aln.-oo.y in:id.C(fuato; 1.0 sen<c nnd s;i1isfy cum:m de1rumd. ll is anolc>gous to sl3rting a forest fire at lb<! same time you CS1ablish u lire Jjstrict to =ge-lhc area. linfommatcly by lln~ rime the districl is orguni=l and re.idy ID commence its wo,-lc the foo:st has already been dccintatcd. We cim understand your de.sire for the Pinn = to focus on solvirig parking problems • .•. foc .,...,cl, individual pare.el ur busin.:ss." However. thi.: parking sp:ice rcdoctions proposed in the draii l't11n will do no1hi11g hut irr.:\'crsibly extend rite sevcrityorthe current residential street JX!~in~shortages throughout th~ entire Vill:3!:e :iitd Barrio oeighbothoods. The policies suggested in rhc Pl;in on thi~ issue appear 10 ,nake no sense wb3tsoevcr unless one of the underlying .ioals is to rc:Jlly =tc w-cct pacrking sl1ortages ~ th:lr the Mobility Management D~ricr would h~,,c d basis lo instnll Street parking mc,!ers to Cstllblish and generate 1111othet revenue Sll'Cllm by impfcmcnting " ... parking 1imt, limit,;, pricirig or other regubtions based on d«m0nwatcd need.· (Pinn, Pan l !rem I 1.>ullct point S. pg, 2.50). In face. b:lscd upon a few comments nlllde by some of the consultants ttl the December forums, I was lcfl with U\e irnpn:s:sion that !he eonsullllnts believe thJlt re.1uiri11g paid p.:,ridng. is something that would be very beneficial to !he city. Aside from :my potenlinlly unch:ar aiendas, ii is obvious 1ha1 lht Plan is proiJOSing suh.~tandard parking requiremcnis in the Village and Barrio m1lyt0 inccntiviT.cdcvcloJ)l!J'S to come in and build (See Plan. Item 3. pg. J.5 thru Item I. pg.3.6). Although I have raised this issue with Scoa and Jaso113 <:ouple oftime.s, neither of you have r-,ally point,,.J to ~n)1hing in the PL.,, tl\nt provides some other c.~pli1Mlion for 1hese reduced development s't.1nd~rd~ um.!l'I' the eode ~r than lo Jow,:r d~'\IClopmenr costs. liven !ISSWJJjng sucJ1 inCCfltivcs arc ;i,:ruoll)· needed (which they arc nor) for developers In build in this high!)'de~irnble beacl1 community, tltcreareccri.iinly bettermcthods(i.e., rcduectl permit fcc.s. property taxes, carillll impro-.em.:nt 1:~1s. increased building heights, etc.) lo encourage sueh future dcvclo11mc111 olhe; than just simr,ly n:d11ciog construction and llcsigi, standruds lo lower de\'elopmen1 oosts. In facr. the Plan nctu:illy srmes chac •rarlcing b::low grade or in strue1ures should be e1100Ur2gcd on commercial or 1:irger rcsidct1tial projecrs but should be screened from ,1n:c1 frontages with liuer building.,; orhabibblo li,s.t OoorsjXlc.:• (S..-ePl:m. Pan3 llcmJ, pg. 7.1 I). "A new senior housingcomplc,c on Harding Street is an c.xccllcn.1 c.xnmplc of how comp;l.ct development can fit in with 1r,c surrour..ding lower <lensi1y neighborhood. l"arking is lnc:ucd off the street. th<" throe S!c.uy building does 001 tower o,...,.. its ueighbo~. and the fllCll<lc presents a well proportioned 'face' to lha.st~et" (Sec PIM, Pnrt I Item 2. pg. 1.8). /\lll10ug!1 the Plan in c:ssencc:icknowlet.lgcs die benefits of newdcvclopmc111s h3viag th"irn:sidcnt amJ visirorparkmg needs m<:I "on site,· the Pl3n appca~ 10 pluc.: developers' intcrcsts above the conimuniries· concerns regarding the loog tern, negative impactsofbuikling new projects witlt inadequmc P,'lrk.ing to meet expected need and dema11d. To motiv:nc devolop~is in these high density nre:is to build -could consider incn,asing 11,e existing height and Ooorlimitations for 11ewstrnc1u= to ma,ximizedcnsity and also rcquireooequmc •on-site• below grade or fir..1 lc,el resident mtd visitor parkiog. This approach to mco:tingou-.sirc r:irking n•cds will crc.J.le tl,,.,elopmenls th:it still fit into the growingneighbortl()Od and at 1h,:s-Jmelimeminimi-r.t: the 11<1,.'lltivei:mpacts upoo the street parkingal'Qllnd the new project. !I would also provide d"vefopcrs with the ~bility to build the RESPONSES RTC-17 COMMENTS rage 5 December 22, 2015 maximum amount of units pt,nnittc<l ••1 e,icJ, silc which increa,,e,; ti-.; return on their i11,-cs1n11.'11t, I hu approach to future dc,elopmcnt and long tcnn 11lanni11J¾ cet1ainly d"5Cn·cs !\lore c.onsidcrat,on and stutly. It is common I)· ackn<J\\ ledt:cd that almo,;t CV\:ry Southern Calif<1n1ia bea.ch clty hns significant pan< ingYJort<1gc,;ru1d issues in theiroon:dowmown andsurmundingresidential comm1mi1ics nenrthe ~h. In fnct. the City of()cca~1dc is now grappli11g wicb a signifo;:ml lack of p:uking in rcsidl.'lltial neighborhood~ near the bench bcc.lu$C of ccx,srnl homes th.al ha\'C been 1um,'tl rnro condominiums. "Residents and some citv orftcillls saythosc projCClsare inundating be-dch communitic:s with ,·ebiclcs parkcJ cm rhestn:et because th¢y don, provid~ enough par~;ng within the development.• (Sex: S:m Diego Union-Tribune Gov & Politics 9'9/15. "City looks 10 tighten coosial p;,rxing mies"). Even the neighboring city of Vista h3'I si&ai11a1n1 parking iSSttes 1ha1 im: becoming progressively worse becnu.se of ne" dcvelopmcnis. In fact "Vislo hus hired consulting firm Walker t>arl!ins ar a cost of nearlyS50,000, tu nl'l)ewtbe parl.ingrcquircmemsofdieeur-tlcpendcot city• ••. "Compared to neig}lbormg North C.:ountycitics Visui gern:mllydcmands more parking for ~partmcnt and cor1docomploxcs. Forex:implc developers must provide 2.33 parking spots per one-bedroom apartment in Vista, hut lht: ,:;,me development in Carlsbad would call for roughly l .S parking spots p,,r one-bedroom apa11nicn1.• (S\.'C S:in Diego Union-Trib,mc Loc:il l']f}J 15, "Y-IS!o Re1hinking J>rutong Requirements"), The ci1y or Carlsbad already has one or the l1mes1 (1.75) one-bedroom per uoil parking SJ)Jlce l\.'quin-ment in San Diego Counl)', yet th" drJft r1an 11roposcs to reduce the Village and Barrio to one ( 1) parking spa~ per one-bedroom unit (see Pbtn l'an 2 Code, pg. 6.43 ). Such a substantial reduction in an area already o,crburden<!d 3S it is will, without :my doubt, have signifi~3nt Md loni;--lasting negmi,.., imp:i-,ts on L'ie Vill.~gc and Barrio. C. Fulure Ne!!21ti,•c lmp,1cts. To lnJ[y appn.-einte the potcntia1 street parking problems llllll will arise U1Klcr the new Plan. a qualified consultanl needs lo e.uminc the :.ueet parking prob!<ms th-JI now c.~ist in lhecorc downtown and surrounding rc.sidential C<'mnmoities ne:ir the beach f!Ofl1 tlu:cityofSan Dicgo.11orth 10Sa1n Clemente. The cum:nt problems :ind iSSl:CS which those local communities arc now denlini willl will also fall upon c~rlsb;id. 111 all likelihood LhoSI: same problems ,om prob:ibly be even greater in C3rlsood because the rroommendcd reduced parking S1andards in the draft Pb11 will he siguificandy below tbe current code starnfards in those surrounding cit ics. Thi~ issue cl.early neoos 10 be siudicd titrther before any oflhc p:uk.ing stand:mb sci forth in 1hc draft Plan ""' linalilCtl and approved h)' the PJ11t1ning Co1nmissi011 and City Council. A good c.'<amplc or1he real potc:-ntial im~cl of these suggested Plan codc ch~ngcs is the proposcJ ~Pacific Wind ProjC'Cl (SDP 15-18)" ("Projeet") whiclt was submilted to the City Planning Department aT'O\fnd lbeenJof August 2015. l11isProjc.:I currenllycolls fortl1cCilytov-.ica1c :md abandon Hurtling Street :ind Carol Pl.tee bot ween Magnolia AvcnV« und Jefferson Strool for the dc~e!opmeol of: (3) a completely g,ttL-d a1Tord:1blc housing project; (b) co11sis1i11g ofapproximatoly 5 lhn:c-story building:, with 120 ap.."lrtrllcnt lmits: and (e) C11Jli11g for 210 parking sp:ice,1 ,~hen the: CUITT!fll MU11idpal Code requires 255. Auachcd i, a r-.;;unple or Local Minimum Parking Rcquin .. ~nen1s" ("Parking Su1m,1:iry") wbich I p,tparcd llt1'1l summarizes chcgcnerol minimum p:irkingrequircmcnts forasimilu 120 unit{JOurrc--oodroom. RESPONSES RTC-18 COMMENTS P:ige Ii Oc.:embcr Tl. 2015 30 two-betlroorn -and 60 E11rce.bedroom) project in C:u-lsb.id under tbe cxi~i,1s cod<,,--s :ind draf1 1'13'1 w,d coo1p;i= 1hum lo some oihcr surrounding, beach cities. As atn be seen by the altaclh.-..1 Parki11g Surnma,y, tire djffenmce betwcc111hc n .. w code revisions und,.,-the l'lau to reduce the p:irking sp:ur requirements in comparison to the cum.111 standards set in otm:r ~unounding ci1ics will bo: signiliC11J11. !lase<! upon these compamblcnumbas it is.,asily foresee:iblea,l(j undeniable IJ1at the proposed fl"J"king reduc1ion.~ in the Plan "ill have serious negative impacts on lhe availabilily of re-sidenti31 stl'CC1 parking in Ille Villas~ and B.trrio u~ "hich already is ina1lcquatc lo mee1 c.uncot dcm;mds. I belic,,e the .u-e:i-SJ)Ccilic standards rcOcacd in the l'arlcing Summary now used ill tJu, City of San Diego, particularly fqr the beach area, dcsetl'C some study and co11sidcr:i1ion before any rio:il decision is mad.: on the rcdtx:ctl standaros now proposed in lhe Pl:m. In fact.:<S you can see by lhentuchcd ParxingSunimary, ifth~ new Code revisioos proposl!d under dw l'lnn are implemented, C-arlsbnd will, wit11outa doubt, have the IOIYcst per unit )XU1cingsp.-"tCcrequircment of ;my beach city in San Diego County. The negative effect of mch n low slandard, in light of whot ls t.u<inJ:!, pla.,,; in the surrounding communities, :ire not only fore;.=b!e but obvious. I can1101 sec: how any n:o.sonablc pcr.oun would want 10 bring :rueh problems a11d iss-ucs on their community. which will dirt:ctly affoc:1 lhc quality <,flirc <>fall or Carlsbad's rcsidenis :md busillCSc'< ownCTS. Furthcnn\lf\; tho Plan app.:ars to eliminate COOlf)lclefylhe curren1!y required garai;e and covered car space standards for all sing,lc family and m11ltifumily unit,; established under 21.44.020, T,blc A of tl1~ Municipal Codi). lnstend, Ille drnft P Ian simply allows "1.i:ndem P3r1<.ing" with no rc<t u ire<l garages or eo,crel) car spaces (See Plan. Part2 -Code pgs. 6.43-6.44). I sc,: no re:isonabtc or r.ition3I oosis set forth in the Pion indic:uins 1111y reasons why g;irages and CO\'er.:d car spaces should be eliminah,d for new residential developments in lln: Village and Barrio, otht:rthltll lo redu1:c dev.:lopmcnt costs. It is aclrnowtcdgcd that r•:u:ific Wind. :res 311 ~rrordab!c housini; Project, may be cmitled 10 the po~ibly lmwrn:11uircd partingspace.standnnl ofapproxim:ucly 210 spaecs under Municipal Ql<lc !ICCtion 21.116.090 Table E. I Jowevcr. there is no discernible factual basis or re1ISOl>S set out in the Plcn "hich presen13 3ny reasonable justification for the blanket reduclion of all packing standards forncwdC\-elopmcnlS in the. Vilragc:md 83rrio other th.in to motivate developers to build subst;mdard structures at the cxpensc of local business owners and n<sidents being forced 10 endure tbt loog-tam negative consequ_cncc.<, of su;;h sub.-tanllard dc,veJopmc111s. In fact Carlsbad'sstatuto,yschcmcofcodcs,111d onlinao~-sassct forth and/or referenced in Chapter 21.86 of the Municipal Code ~ppears to be man: than ndequ.;11c to stinmlllle builder.I to d,;velop afl'ordablc housing in thcs.: communities. The Pfun however proposes to reduce th" parking requirements for ~II new dc"clopments below e~n those Slalldards already e<lnbli~ltcd fo. affordable housing with no reasonable explanation or justification. The P'-.a.:ilic Wind Projec1. i$ :u o, oear lhe intcrs..-clion ofT:un:mick Awnue und Jeffcr..on Stn:e1, which is the only 1ruun 11ccess point olTTrunarack Avoou.: in10 the 8a1Tio !Tom th~ ~uth. l'llthough one tan also llec= the. Barrio from the south ofTT:unarack ont\"I I libiscll.SIAnchor Way, tll3t llCCCSS point 11c1ually reeds into Jefferson Su-cct. It docs not take a tremendous autount oi f'oresight 10 understand and nppre.:iate lhe adverse imp:IC! RESPONSES RTC-19 COMMENTS Page7 lk>t:enibcr 22. 2015 lhese n:duecd parking s1andnnls \\ill have on lhe avnilabitily of suce1 parking on Jefferson Sttect and the 01J1er sl1<.-ets ~round the Pacuic Wind Project lflllc dcvclopcr is only required 10 i11s1all. under the draft Piao, 165 residcutinJ (NO visiLOr) p:,rking spaces ro s.:rvice 120 resideulial uni1s. 90 of which \\'iH be two 3nd three-bedroom uni!$. In lh:it tlic Pacific Wind Project is propostd to be.a vgatcd" commumly. any deficicni parking ( whicll there will be) within llk: Project site will naturally force the P:icific Wind rcsidcms 3Jld visitors-lo p:trk 011 the surrounding stn:.:ts outside 1he Project. "1,ich strc<:1s are already ovcrburJi:ne-d. This e,·cr gmwinguna,·ailabilityof rc:sidenafal stm,I parking in 1he Villagt'and tlanio ,vlll n:11urJtly cffCci lhe overall desirability and walk-abili1y of these neighborhoods. If the pf'lll105Cd building Code revisions for 1hc City of Cnrisb:ld as set fonh in the draft Plan go iooo effect, 1.hc Villui;e ~nd Bumo residential parking sh-,nages will become in.sulft:rable and irreversible. ACCF.SS. Pf.l)l::SfIUAN ANO BlCYCU; ISSUES I> 'Pffl;ifie Wind Projocl • Acc.,.s.s and Walk-,",bilitv 'O,covcrall vision 3Jld l)l)jcctivc ofthedrafl Plan is to make the Vilhigo:& lktmo communi1ie:< more open.,. welcoming :md ~walk-able." The drafi Pinn specifically references theP:icific Wind Project arc.i and men tkms some general cri tcrion for any future dcvcloprm.'fll plan th 111, as you can.,;.:,:, realigns I b:rd ing St reel IQ essentially nbut the 5 Freeway to circle lhc Project and 10 reconnect ii wilh Magnulia A,·enue 3od Caro! Pince ~e J•lan. Pan I Item 6, Pl!· 2.19). Tbc i;uJNnt Pacifk Wind pl.m, l1<mcv.:r. <:alb for the dcvelopmcm of a •gated c:111m111mity• :md 1h~ vncationarwl 11bando11mcntofl lru-dingSt=t and Carol Platt with no •new" rcpla.ccmenl Sln:c:J.,;, Hased upon nly p.ast convcr.;ation.,; wilh Austin. I believe City saalT is currenlly receptive 10 ahe possibility or vac,itin~ Harding Street but wams 10 rc1ain Carol Plllre 3S 3 public street. We., its surroundingpropcnyowners oflhi;< new proposed Pacific Winddc..,clopmem. h;iveconccms and objections to ltny propos;il ~-ailing for the City 10 essentially provide a girt of public lnnd/stn,elS 10 an}' de,·clopcr for a pri\<nlc "gated ~'Olrimuuity.• l'urthc:rmorc. I am uol .:onvinccd that l'3dtic Winers currently propo$Ctl v11C.11ioo of Httrdius Strccl !lmllorC"rol Pla.:emcctsthc gen<rnl rcquirementsof Pnrt 3 of1hc Streets and I lisflw~ys CodeScctio1L< 1!320 Cl. ;;eq.; 1lOI' tl:ic "Summary Vacation" of1hosesln:ets under Part 4oflheSm,ctsand Higlm'3)'SCodc Scclions 8330 eL seq~ without requiring the clcdication and consu-uc1ion of"new• n.-aligacd streets ~srecommended in Par1 I Item 6 on p:tgc2:19 of1hc Pl;in. l have had a recent bul brief telephone convCJS:1tfo11 wilh Todd Conk, "ho I.S Ille Dcvclupcr "conta<:t" fortJ1c Projec1co1=ing the matter. Duringouroonvers3tinn, Mr. Colli(> indic:11cJ 10 me ll1at the. cummlly propos,:d plan fur-the Pacific Wind Projcct i~ 1101 linalrL«<i. Mr. Conic nmJ I agreed to May 111 cun1uc1 ;ind fur1her discuss our is,;ucs concemmg the Project as ll progn:sscs. At this point. howc\'ter. w.: believe the overall neighborhood would be hem~r sen cd b)' du: de,·elopcr subminiog In lhe Ciry proposed amendments to t:he Pacific Wind plan which are more consistent with the RESPONSES RTC-20 COMMENTS Page 8 I.>eccmocr 22,201$ concepts sci forth in frn, tlr:,f1 Plan. /\nd do not require Ilic nbandonmcnl of 3ny public streets without " rcalii;1Imcn1, cled1a1tion and de, clopment ofne" rcplnecment streets. That wn)' the Pacific Wind l'rQJCCI will not only blentl better mlo our Cltisling ncighboritood, but ii will also insure, I he accessibrlil) 311d walk~-ibility of the area by surrounding neighbors as well as lbc general public.. I!. Sidewalk and 8ic,"Clc l';l5S;!gce1, Om:ofthc "Key Rceommc11da1ioru"ur.derll1<: l•lan 1sto, ~eonnecr Mal,!)'lolia i\,1:11ue\uAnchorWay ,, irh ~ sidewalk. a:id provide safe passage 10 children he:1diog 1oscbool.'" (l'lan. Part I, ir~m (l(j). pg. 2.6.J While this appears 10 Ix-an excellent i~ it do.:s 1101 seem practical in that any new pc,;lcs:trian access from Magnolia to Anchor \Va::· will require the aeri:ise of eminent don1<1in. ·1bis COli!d be a costly and lime consuming proces..-.. I Wl'Uld suggest rh.~l these types of new pe(lestrion .1eccss points should :stay focused on improving e..Jsting rights of way. l'or cxrunpfc. I would suggest these pa~c ways should include connce1ions off of Village drive ;lndollicrpublicly dedicated streets to the bikc/pe-dcs1rim -coastal RwlTrairthat runs:ilo11g1tu:1r:1in trucks ncM to ihe Barrio. lllcsc addition:tl ~cccss poiiX~ would truly enhance the ,Yl1lk-<1bfli1y of the overull area and rn:ike it more:i~sibleto the Barriocommunily. Pl.,-J«Cgivcll1is issu• some funhcrconsideratiar. and specific.ally identify all polcntial e,cistini;r.ublic .tccess points Lhat appcru-fCttStl>le ;md COSt cft"ectivcto install as soon as the linal Phm is ultimarely :ipprovcd. MINOR 1u:v11,:w PERMIT F. Communit,· Concerns. u,ck Of Aocount.abjliw Anolher<roublc$0nlC issue is the recommendation to odd "New construction ofbuikling{s) reg;irdless ofnse, up 10 IS,000 square foct in size. new buildings wnh 2-10 dwelling uniL<;., and/or ... ChanJles in pcrmi11cd t:ind uses which result in sit~ ch:mge~ in~rcased traffic:., or increased parking rcqui~mcms .•. • to rile li~1 of'"MJnor lmpcovements" 111111 only require the appro,'DI of the City Planncr{Plan Pan 2, hem 2 (11), pg. S.6). Although we n:cognize rile d,:sire and potential need of City St.afT :ind interested de\·1:lopc1S ro cxpedi1" the pcrmiuing. proces,;, it should nOI be al the i:~pcnsc of stilling or muting the concern~ or communi1y members nor should it incre:ise chc rime and o:xpensc lo have ll1ose concerns hea.rd or n:,'iil"'cd. Under the currc,1l Municipal Code, chc final deci•ions to ultim:tlcly approve, reject or modify dcvclopmc111 rermits falls upon the City Council. 1=0, lite most p:111. Ilic City Cow,cil and the Code hDS dclcgaced a lot or Ihm aulhority and [C$f)<)Mbility ro the Planning Commission. Gc:nerally spcal;ing, the appointed Comm~-;sioners are residents orour o.:ighborhoods and h:ivc $01TIC c,:pcrient:e nr backf!l'O<Jnd in de,..:lopmcm andforcummu11i1y issues ~nd are al least indin.'cily nocoun1111>tc 10 lhc community they save. Commis$ioi.cr.. are expected to be unbiased. indcpcnderil, knowlcdi,oeablc and open minded ro not only lhc project hdni; pl"Clicnted but :ilso to the conccms or those r1:sidcn1S "bo will be affce1cd by th" proposed new dev.:/Qpmcn1s. lf a oommunity member has ~n is!<uc with a particuuir developmc,nr.. he or she c,in express rhose conccms dir~1 ly to tl,e Commissioners; who for all pmclic:11 purposi:s are 311 cxtc1L<ion o(thc City Council who ~ppoi1111.-d lhcm lo serve io tl1cir s1ead. If a n:sidcnl bei.i.,,,.,,. his/her is.sue.< "ere m11 rulcqu:ttcly addressed by thcPlanningCommission, then hc.lshec:1n pay the SI ,OOOplus fet:and file an apfl".11 to lbe City Council fo, review (Plan Part 2, Jtem 5, pg. 5 .7). RESPONSES RTC-21 Page') Occcmbcr22, 2015 COMMENTS The inclusfon of Iii., abo~c ;1cms to 1he Jin or "Miuor lm,fJmvcmems" seems tu empow<'r the City Pbnnu !o become the tin;:,1 orbitrotoraud 01-ersecr or a rio1~111ially significant number nr nuw projeci:s io O,c 1/illagc and Barrio "ithou1 aoy inpm fl\1m lbe Planning Commission. Tltc$c Ado,inislrmivc dceisions c:in be rc"icwcd by 1hc Planning Commission only if ll,c ooncenicd commun'ity llletnbc:r ()3)'$ lhC S 1.000 plus fee 10 ha,-e the is.sue reviewed by 1hc Planning Commission (Plan Part 2, [rem S. pg. 5.7). 11'.ese addilio,,..I items.. 011 their face, would appc.v 10 covcr n subslonlial am1)unt of :ill new devdoplllc!llt in the Villa!:!C nnd Barrio 1h31 now tnll;s under the <lir,;-c1 n;'SpOr!Sibilil} uf 111.: Pl~nnini; Commission. Many parcels ('-'~lhou1 asscmbL1b>e) in the Village and Barrio 11rc mo>SIJJ ,malle,-lo1s.. With re,idencfal densily set 3t 30 units per acre anJ :i limit of up to 15,000 square feel for all new cunS1ruc1ion (=idential or cornmcreial}, i1 would appear that a mnjori1~ l)f all new projec1s in the Barrio :mJ Vill3ge coo Id be ad1ninistrnti,·clydcicrmincd and/or approved by 1l1e City PL1nn,-rnnd bis sll\lf without any o,•ersight or re,.,iew by lhc Planning Co111n1ission unless an appeal i$ filed. The rtanning Commission's function. purpose and rcspoMibility is. among 01hcr things. 10 o,..,rsec tbc fu1uredcvelopmcn1ofourCicy, ·ni~t primary responsibility should noc be delegated roan Adminis1n.tllf' or his/herstafTwho works very closetyc,'ery day wilh developers to r,wicw all<l approve proposed building pf(ll'IS for recommendation to the Commis.~ion: which plaooeT, !Tom a practiCAI SClOOpoinl, essentially h::is 110 .iccoun1abili1ywhmSOt.-verto lhe residems in the community. The Ciiy l'lanncr's prim:11y rC$ponsibility is to review plans: const<ler eommunily comments or conc,:ms n:gurcling proposed new ,kvclopments; to insure the plans an: in confnr:rnnnce with the Municipal Code and Master l'lan: aml to 1 lu:n prov idc the I' lann in g Commission with a recommended c:ou r5e of acl ion. It is llrc Planning Commissioo's respon~ibility torevi<:w, imp.1rti3Jly consider 3lld weigh nll 1ht in format tan P"--SCOtcd by tbe P14Itncr, Developer and Community Members on 1hc proposoo proj.:e1 and then decide whtthc.-or not it shoo td be approv.:d. modified or rejected. TI1e Plan's suggested additions 10 tile list fur Minor lmprovcroculS 001 only seem to usurp the Commission's powers and n.-sponsibiti1;cs, but it also adding another lay« of subsuntivc ond proccdurnl hurdles lh:11 are 1101 Deressal)" and could have 3 chilling effect 011 com mun ii}' tnpul. The Commo11it)' deseNt:Slo have :in. impanfal Pbuning Commissioo. in a public forum. make final decisions on all significant new developm<:nts that will impacl their nc(gbborhoods. Delegating such decision-making n::spoosibility 10 ll1« Ciry Pia.oner creates a real possibility of di=franchising. ibc coriununily members nod in panicular the Barrio n:sidcols from any true p;lrlicipation in the proc,:ss its<,lr. Requiring only an adminisrr:nivc non-public review 411d npprov-aJ process for siJlllHicant projects and tl,en forcing upon residents~ time COn5uming:md costly review pr=Jure to lhe Pl11nning Commission and City Council will, in as.hon l)('riod of1imc. stillc :ti) oocaningfol oommunily inpul. TI,e procedural layer the Plan is adding to the process by including these items 10 1he list of Minor lmpmv;:mc.-nlS crc~tes additional time .md expense: that will be incurred by residents being forced 10 appeal an) "fi11,3J• ml01inis1r.t1ivc dc.:ision 101hc Plw:llling Commission nt u cosl of $1,000 plus and then to Cit) Council fur :mothcrSJ.000 plus fee. I am sure you -.ould agre,: that most residents in the Village and Oorrio .:ommunitic:s do nol have the tim< nor fiunncial n:sourc.:s lo go throug.h such a costly :ind lime-consuming process. RESPONSES RTC-22 COMMENTS Page 10 0...-cember 22, 2015 Any pr<lf10M'tl delegation of the Planuing Cummission's t!.ccisin11-m;1kingau1hori1y for:, p<)tcntiall) s1i;,1ir.cnn1 majority of all new dc,clopment in 1.he Villa;,te aml U.irrio toan insulaJcd Administr.11or tllat has 110 c1Tcc1i.·e occountabilityto th.., community is nci1hernttdtld no.-is il io the best intercsJ of 1bepn:sent and futuno residen~ ofVi1lagc and Samo. Within a few sbon yc:irs the c:umufathe impact (posith--e or ncga11vc) of these "administr.niv.:• penni1s" ill be substJlllli31 and pcmmne,u. To II)' aod stril<o :\ balance between the comrnuuitics intcresl!;and 1hc t-xpcditcd proces.s I would propose 1h:i1 these cwo itcins be revised 10 ,late ai, folh)\,s in the !'Ian: ... • •N.,w construeti<>n nfbuifdi11g(s} regardless of use. up lO 4.000 square fce1 in sl~ new buildings with 2-4 dwelling units, and/o,-... ·-C11anges in pcnniued land uses "hichrei.ultin slight ormiuorchangcsofle:s,; than 10% in site !ocatiou. incrc..sed traffic. or increased parking n:quiremenLs._ • TI,c abo\'e su~csac<I revisions -.out.I still enable cily .su,ff to ad1ninistra1i,•l.)Jy .:itp-.:dile most com=lal and residential co1is1ructiot1 for cssen1ialh· all sm:tll businesses wid individu..~I residential propeny owner.; on smaller projects and still =n,e to the Pf31111ing Commission the revfrw and decision making authority oo nil other llC\\ project~ in the Vi!lag,: and Barrio. Of coursl.', 10 the e.~tenl the Pl.Inning Commission has already reviewed and approved a J)t'Ojcct am.I some subsequent issues or concems nrisc afler the pcmiils an, is:<ucd, lhen 1J1e Commission coultl delegate furure follow up, c:om:,clions or remedies to the City Pl;,nner and his slllfT to decide and implement odministrnlivcly. It is not aceepiable. however. to tum o\•cr the entire process on n potcntfall)• signilic:mt majority of all new projecis in llle Villas,, and B.,rrio lo 1hc City Planncr. While it 1:nay be important to streamline the pennining process for dcvdopcrs of rcsida:atinl and commercial projects then, mLJSl be a oolnnce b..--twccn the i111crcs1s of all I.he stukeholclcrs (developer.;, comnumity and city) invoh ed. Accordingly, before lhese pr,,~I new items arc ruldcd lo tho ll:s1 of"Minor lmpro,1:mcnis"as drafted in U1c: Platt, a Study ~hould be conducted 10 ddenninc 110" much of !ht: new construction will actually foll undef' the Minor lmprovcancut category. If it is a .substaotia.l majorily as believed than these items should be delt<1cd or revised ns suggi,sted above 10 strike 3 haluncc betwee11 expediency of !he process alld ,vlial i~ in 1hc ocst interest of 311 the ~1.ak ... holders. SUM,'1,tARV, CONCLUSIOl'<'S AND JtECOMMl-::-IDATJONS. G. Comments <ind Oh.servatinns.. Gcnewlly I really like1bc:overall visions and pedcsuian/bicycle frit:ndlyt-onccptsserout in !he Plan. I just do n« bdieve m: should compromise building siand:srds thm do not rusJly supp'Ort or strengll1en imph:mentatioooftbestarcd •visiun~•and in factaccuaUyneg<tJh't:ly afTectthe loni;1em1 ~. ~njoymemaml quality of life of our neighborhood jus1 10 inoenlivizc dC\'clop.,n; to "m.fill" our commu11i1y with denser housing -.iml commen:i:>I development. As indic;itcd above. th<."SC proposed compro,niscdS1andartls wil I cenainly create:, long term scarcil)' of sln:"L parking throug/10UI dle Village and Barrio. These propo.cd rcduceclstambrds will quickly deplete nll available street parlw1gsupply and at the same time incre:isc dcm-.ind because new devcropm-,nls will be RESPONSES RTC-23 COMMENTS Page 11 o~ccmbcr 22. 201; dc::srgned wirl:t inlldoqu.:uc parkins 10 scl"\"C all visitors. residents and brnfo"5s uwoors in Lire Villa1,-.: n,1d llarrio and i1: p:uticubr the 85% who co<umutc o!Vety dBy. Thi:: Plan itself acumlly acknnwlodgcs.: a) The: ne..:d co "Increase the pa;',dug supply" ilhin lire ,•illJtgc on cil)'-O"lll!d parc,els and properties 3S well as on streets" (Plnn Item I (d) pg. 2.4): and b) Thal "While \\al~bili1y is:icommunily goal. tile M3slcr Plan must accommod:ne motoriSISas it impro,·es mobility m rl1e Villn~c and Umio by othe.-ml!ans ..•. Surpri~-ingly. the addition ofpmfogspac..s c;u, have the unexpected benefit of c11h:uici11g biking and walking by removirag conOicl~. slowing traffic, anJ prO\'idiD!!, a buffer.• (Plan P.irt I, lt,'111 5. pg. 2.53). Tiic SUb$1ancllrd buildin~ code re\•iscoos p"'f>(ISC<I in,~ Plan 3re in direct connict with these stated objcetivts and finding,;. Allhough the I'lnn .tl;ono1cstha1 noaaU31 parkings1udies h~vcbc.:nconducted " ..• \\e.<tofCBrlSbad Boule,ard and east of Madison Su-eel, or in the 13.nrrio" (Plan, item 4, pr;. 2.52), tJ,., !'Ian siill pmposes to amend or replace the i',lllnicipal Code to rwuce by approJCimatcly 35% the total number of parking spaces rcquin:d for new rcsidcmti:il dc-.-.:lopmcnts in 1be Vilfuse and Barrio. (Sec Plan. P. .. rt 2 -Code pgs. 6.43 • li.'1'1). rn faot, the new Plan propos..-s 10 climln:necumpktcly the .25 ro .JO •space pc:r ;each unit" of visitor parking spaces thm Brc now required for all rcsiJcntial unilli under current )1unicif13l Code Section 2!.-14.020. Tnbte A. Common sense would seem to dicta le that Carlsbad. like Vista and Oceanside. shoul<l ncrually study 1be pruking issues in 1be residential nri,as surroundi1~ tbe downtow11 Village area .is ""II as th;: Barrio between 7 p.m. in lhc «vening !brouglt S a.m. in the morning. before the Municip:il Codes are ac1ua1Jy runended or revised 10 n:Jucc loo parking SL1Dd.1tds roe on) w ... ·w residential developments. Funhem1ore, the proposi,d inclusion of. a)"""' 1'0<1$1ructi<>n ofbuildini;(s) cc:ganflcss of use, up lo I S,000 square feet in size; b) new buildini;s with 2-10 dw-.:lling uni1s; and/ore) chang,,s in pcsmin.cd limd uses "hich result in site chan_gc!$, inc:re:i~cd lr:lffie. o,-increased pming n,quin:1ncms 10 the list of"Minor tmr1ro'IIC111cm.s'' ~Y needs to be uudicd further :md probably deleted. rcVised or umcnded as di-'CUSSCd above. Although l~scnew items may expedite the pc:nnining process for newd::,-elopmcnls in the Village am! Barrio, it docs so UL the risk of suffOC:kling_commuoity inpw ru1d signilieantly incn.'aSCS lbc time and expense to "3,-c 1ho;c concern~ hc:ird and rc\'iewcd; wilh no accounrabilily by lhc City Planner to die community hc/sh.,-scrves. \fore imponant, lhe addition oflhcsc items to rho: li,,i of",\,f.in<,.-lmprO\·cmcms• appears to be the functionnl cqurv-Jlen! nf thcPlnnning. Commissioncrssimply~lxlie:uing responsibilit)• forone of the primary duties for which llu, Commissioners were: appointed~ """Y out (i.e .. lo make im1>-,rtfal final Jccisions on all new d..--velopmems i11 the Cily) on a majo.-ity of all new devclopmcn1 in the Village and D~mo. 11. Su!!::te:;tims And RC()()mmcnda!ions. In light of the: above, I m:,l,;e the following sugg,:siions and n,comrneodations rc<>.,nnling the l'llln: I) An ac1uah1udyofcommuter lreOds in !he Villa!!< and Barrio necdstobca:mducted before there is any reduction m:i<lc in the rx1rl<ing standards fnr new con5truaion. We need 10 be :,01'C that :ill new dcvclopmcms arc desii;nal and constructed to accotumoda1c, the ne.~L 20-)carprojccted pasking n<-cds of oil n:sit!cms and in particulnr the 85% of the commuting popuL1tion who will reside in ~nd aroi,nd tbc Oarrio RESPONSES RTC-24 COMMENTS Page 12 December 22. 2015 :md Village communi1ics.. 2) Any code n,,·isions sh-Ouk! n~ually set f0<1h a Slalt-d policy that ,-,:quires a.II l.,~e multifamily residen1ial (5 or more units) 10 be dcsisncd with all p!lrk.ing: "011 s-i1e:; be!low grade: io strucrures: anti/or on firs1 noorspacc; :uul screened from si=t view 10 m"'-'1 all on-sile res idem nnd visi11.1r p.~rking needs for web dNC!opmcnt." The revisions should oJsoprobably include an m:commodallon lhut :,JJ0ws311 incre.ase in 11lc height 3ndlor 1100<" limita1ions so density 1nrge1s and b'<.131s can be mc..-t by dc,ctopers.. ·n.-~ iocreascs in hcith• nnJ 0oor limi1atioas :s.Jiootd be suffici.:n1 tu irn:cn1ivi;re rum enab!c ckvelupcrS 10 maximiz<: dcnsily amJ inc:rensc d11:ir return on invcs1mro1. J) i\memlmeHts to iJ,e Pal!ific Wind plans are needed to make 1he Project more cousisiem wi1h th" conccplS sel forth in the drafl PU111 {Plan, Pnrt ! , Item 6 pg. 2.19). To (he c,.,:1ent there is nn abando11mC11I or any public slrettts. it must iocludea rc-:ilignn:u:nl, dedication and developm,"Ill of m,w replaccmenu,trcc-1s 10 insun: lhe o,·erall 3t-ccssibility ond ,v-Jlk-abi[i1yofthe a~ by surrom1ding neighborl! as well a.~ lhe ~nernl public. •l) !Jent ify ;It the po1cn1ial nud existing public right of way access poi nu to con~'CI 1hc B.:trrio wirh the "Coo.sml Rail Trair IJ1:1t nms along lhe train trnck,; which would bi: the most feasible (\\ithou1 eminent domain) and cosl•effectivc loca1ions to instnll ndditionaJ pc:dcstriaJJ and bicycle patli,; as soon :is the fina[ Plan i.< ul1imately approved. 51 A qualified consullant m.'Cds to examine 1.hc $lrect parking problems 1h.at no\v cxi•I on the core: downtown nnd surrounding rcsidenl.iol comnumitics for nil the ci1ie,; on the bcch from San Dii,go lo San Cfemeu1c. We should cvalu.11c lhll,\c problems :ind issues in beach citfos with parking srande.rds rbnt :ire similar t.o Carlsbad's to undcrsrand whar 10 expect and how wc C3ll mitig;,.tc lhc negative impacts. In !:tel those problcmi. nnd issues will in all Hkclihood be 1.,-ven ~tcr io C:irl>--txid bee:,...,. the: recommended reduc~-d parkini;standanls in thedrafi Plan nrehclowd1cc11m:ntcodcs1arod11nlsnow:1¢1 in lhosesurroumlin& cities. According I> this issue: cli:arly ncoo.s to bes1udied further before lhe pnrking Sl'111dards set fonh in the draft Pl:u1 ;ire aclually lin.1lr.red and approved by (he Planning Commission aud Ci1y Council. 6) Study nnd considcnuion !ihould be given to adopting 1he City or San Diego ·s ·11rca specific~ psr\:iog standanJs in Carlsbad ss 1.he pr.?fcrablc formula in calculating rcsi&>nl -ml<l "isil04' parking requirements for lhc Village :md Barrio. 7} Carfsh:,d, lil<e Vi,m1 and Ocean.~idc, needs to a.etually study the parking_ issues in lhc n.-sidentilll areas suJTOunding the duwnrown Village as well :1$thc &trio bctwc,:11 7 p.m. in the evening lhrousr15 a.m. in Lbe morning (wbe,, residential demand is at ilS peak) before any ac1ion is ukcn lo rcdoec the parking fC\!Uin:mcnts for any new devclopn~nts under the codes. l belic\•c dcmond is higher durins 1he evening hour.; because 85% oflhe residents arc moll:'. than likely 1\wking comml!tt:£5. 8) ·mere needs 10 he some identifiable reason:iblc ~ml ration:tl f:11:tu~l basis sci forth in the Plan m indicate the speciric rtas<ins why 1he currently required garages and covered car sp:ice& should be climirutted for all new resident ml d<:\·clopmcnL~ in lhc Village and B3rrio, otJ1cr than m reduce dcvdopmcnl costs. If there arc no kr,i1imate reasons orcxplanatioos. othcrlh:111 lo reduce development cosl:s, tl\an the cnrrcnl code standards should remain in place for rhe Village 011d &mo, RESPONSES RTC-25 Page 13 December2~ 2015 COMMENTS 9) Pali.ins ,md building slnn.cfards under 1t1e Munie,apal Cod,;, should not be reduce<J "' anu<lified in lhc Village .,.-Barrio uuril such lime us lhe su>die:1 SU!ll!i:sied in i1cms I. S, 6 and 7 300,-e aro actually completed. considered and cv:ilu:ited by the "Mobility Management Di:stricl" as proposed and dr.scussed in the Plan ll'l:in Parr I, Item I. Jl&-2.50). 011cc tbc "Mobility M3Dai;cme_nt District" is formed and bas actually consider.:d and cvalu:ncd all information compiled 1hrouglt !he studies ii {Oisuict). 1, itlt !he assiSUU1ce of ciry ~taff. can maJ;c fom1al recommC!ld3tt<>ns to the Pl:mning Commission and/or City Council on any proposed building or p~ri<ing cod.ire, i~ion, aCCQrding '" e:\'pt!l:led needs ow:,-the next 20 )'-e:ots. IO) 111c proposed :iddition of items 10th<.: Hsi of"Minnr lmpTOH:mcms· in the Jrafi plan sl1oul<l be .-c~iscd 10 onl) include: ~New conslitlCliou ofooih.lins.(s) rcgarJ.les& of use, up to 4.000 square feet in size. ne\\ buildings with 2-4 dwelling units. and/or ••. Chiuages in permitted land uses wl,ich result. in slight or minor ch:mgcs ofle:ss.1han 10% in site loca1io11, increasted ir.,ffic. er increased p:uking re;iuiremcnis. .. • 11) lft.lur revisi()nssusgcstcd in 10 (lbov<: an:not a=pt~ble 10 the coosuhants, then before the rwo proposed n.lw ii ems discussed in tl1e Pbn nrc added 10 the list of".\(inor Improvements" an inve.1igalion Md study should be conducted. The srudy should deiennine how much oflht>potentiol uew eonstruc1ion In die Vill:a,ge and Llarrio will ac:lually ,1ualify untler Minor lmpn1vcmcnts iflbese l\\o c:ale:goricisani added to the lisl :is wri1tcn in the Plan, If ii is a substantial number or projects as belic,ved tl1CJ1 t.1,csc items should be delett:d and/0t revised, .\S ouilim:tl above. in the Plan to strike a balance between cXpcdicncy of the prooe5S and whut i.s in tbe b-~ interest of all stokcholders. I look fonlll!.rd lo "orking with yoo 10 address the issue.< we h.avc coocemiug the drnn Village and B:i.rrio Master Pion as well as the proposed Pacific Wmd pro~L Sho~ld any o haw any questior,s or concems n.--gardu1g any of 111" above. please Jo not hesitate 10 coot:ic, me out carlicsl C411--enl~ace. THE BAIL! LEGAL GROUP oy· ____._I _\\......,___ __ J1 ho L Bat\ey 1:.nclosarc (Parking Summary) cc: {all cc's with cm:losun:) Chy Council {U.S. Mail only) nonorable ;\fatt H.ill. Mnyor I lo11<1roblc Kehh lllackl>um I lo1101'11ble MMk 1>.tebrd Uonorable Lorraine Wood I lonorable Mich1icl Sclum1.1chcr Pfanoing Commission (U.S. Mnil) lloooruble Velyn And~rsoo. Chairman Monor.illle Marty Montgomery I lonorablc Anhur N icl Ufack I lonoro.blc Keery Siekmann HollOnlblc St~phen "H.ip-L' Heun:ux Honorable JcffSeg:111 V RESPONSES RTC-26 • COMMENTS Page 14 December 22, 2015 I C&:C Dc,.ilopment Co. LLC (via cm~il only) A11n. roJJ Conic Barrio Neighbors (via email only) RESPONSES RTC-27 COMMENTS S:un11lc or Locol l'llinimum P3rkiug l<equircmcnls Uelow ;, :1 1:ible lisi111& ~nx: IOc.ll boadl ~itics· s,.•ncr.:il 1111111mwn par1-in~ ruquire,nculs-for muhi-f.imily housing. 1h:1t al..o reforcoocs Ille Mum<:ip:ll Cude 5«tiou 11nncn,hicl1 the rcquircmcnls 3cc ..:siubti>tK-d. ~or co111p.,nsofl purpose$. the required ofT-strcel parking spaces. induJiog i;uC$1 pOJkin~ -ns calculalcd for a hypo1.b.-uc:il 121.1 unil de,-elopmenl consisting of: 30 one bedroom unit<, 30 IWO hedtoon1 w1it;, 311d 60 three bedroom units. The municip:,_litics are listed from the lowest 3w,:r-age n.-quiri:d spaces per unil to the higbl!Sl. Minimum Required Pork1ng Spaces per Unit H)p<ll.hcticol 120 Vnit Muhi--fomily Oevclo1»ne11ls (by Unit T_yp.:, l)evs! lopnlC111 G~ for all Unit To1ol Space< pc, I BR 28R 38R Guest Sroccs !Jnit Ot:caJisiJ.: 1.5 2 2 I plus20%of 31.Jl()J loll!! units 250 1.08 C:trls!iad 1.5 2 l .25/unit 155 2.1:? 21.44.020 Tnblc A Sol:ma J3eaK.I, 1.5 2 2 .'.!S/uml 255 2.12 17.52.(J.10 San Clcmcn1e I.S 2 2.5 0.333/tmil 295 2-45 17.M.050Tablc Encinitas 2 2 1.5 .25/uniL 300 2.5 3554030 San Dic!!l) 142.0525 T:iblc 142.0SC' a) Basic 1.5 2.0 225 220o/• of 10111.r off 2811 2.4 b) T nu1s;t110"· str«t pe-rl<ing required iOC()ftle> 1.25 1.75 2.0 ~ 252 2.1 c) !~ch/school imp.,01 1.7S 2.25 2.5 324 2.7 Proposed Draft M~tcr Pl:111 I 15 1.5 -<I• 165 I.J7 Nole: All of !he ahovc an, merely ihc numbct-of ro<1oired panting ~--ecs. This list docs uot include the addi1~n:1l regulaiion• cities impose such"" rcquiringih:u at least one spac,: per unit l,c-co,-ercd. crc. 1 San l)iego Code requires more !)llrkiog for de,•etopmenL~ !hat ore" ... al le-.1:>'t partially within :1 dC$ign:nc-d beach imp:,et area ... " ,:ind Lransillaffordablc housing.= so all three calculations :ire provided. i San Oicgu Code allows 510me fle.".ibili1y for common area/visi1or parlcing 10 rncrca.,;c or dc'Crcase based 011 the are:i aff'cctcd by the development • "Df!l.'t'(OfJ/11~111 c1ualif)•ing fur l,uth:, rct1uced parking ratio (rrom,it 1/T'l!a or rery /1111• i11e<n11t• p:irking r:ilio) :ind an ,orrcascd pnrking l"Jlio (Parking Jmp:1ct Area} .shall also usc:-lhr b:1sic p:1rking r.,tiu." (Foo11101c I for 'l':ible 142.0SC) RESPONSES RTC-28 E-1 STATE Of CAUFO!INIA PU!ll.lC UTILITTES COMMISSION March 4, 2016 Soott Donnell City ol Cattsbad Planning Depanmenl 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 COMMENTS Re: SCH# 2016021056 Carlsbad (SAN DIEGO) va. and Barrio Master Plan -DMND Dear Mr. Oonoelt The California Pubic Utilities Commission (Commiss1on or CPUC) has jurisdiction over Ille safety cf hlghway"fSil crossings (crossings) in California. Commisskm approval Is required for construdion or alteralion or crossing.s. The Commission's Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch (RCEB) is in recelpt or the draft Mihga!ed Negative Dec1aralion (MND) for the Cily of Carlsba<I {City) Village and Banro Master Plan. This Master Plan affects an area that includes at-grade crossings at bo1h Grand Allenue (DOT# 026820X) and Carlsbad Village Drive (DOT# 026821E), between Washington Street and Stale Street. Train operatlofls along this Ira.ell incwde freight, commuter, an<! pasSet1ger rallroad servlOE! at speeds up to 90 miles per hour. There are plans to add a secorKI railroad lrack along this corridor. Wdhin San Otego County, the Gri!lld Avenue aossing has the highest number of "predicted accidenls pel' year; based on the Federal Railroad Administration's Web Accident Prediction System. Toe Carlsbad Vilage Drive crossing is 1 s" on the same list. Draft Illustration excerpls from Village and Barrio Master Pian, Part 4 -Appendix. rn the Master Plan, Carlsbad Village DriVe is descrtbed as: ·one of the main connections from the rest of Carlsbad and 1-5 to the Village and beach front ... Instead cf ooly functioning as the primary t~hfare 'Mlhin the Village, ij can become a maill weet -a plaoe Where people feel comfortable dining, shopping. walldng, cycling and driving.• For Grand Avenue, the Master Plan discusses "the importance ol lhe two-block segment belWeen the railroad tracks and Roosevd Street" and refers it as a curt>-less "festlval street• along thal segment. As long as the at-grade aossings remain, it is aillcal that lhe sarety needs are considered for all roadway users at the traoo. The plan discUsses options fDf reconllguratlon of the roadWay Including "removal of the E-1 RESPONSES This comment discusses safety at the railroad tracks, particularly at Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive at-grade crossings, and notes "as long as the at-grade crossings remain, it is critical that the safety needs are considered for all roadway users at the tracks." The comment cites November 2015 Master Plan draft concepts (also contained in the April 2016 draft) of removal of landscaped medians on Carlsbad Village Drive, the addition of street trees, and development of a "curbless" festival street along Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and the railroad tracks. These improvements1 the comment notes, could potentially impact safety at a rail crossing by removing barriers and reducing visibility. In response, the January 2018 draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan does not propose median island removal on Carlsbad Village Drive (see Section 4.3.11 C. on page 4-29 -4-30) that was previously identified in the November 2015 Master Plan. Regarding street trees, added text is proposed (via errata to the Planning Commission staff report) to Section 4.3.8 ("Provide Shade") in the January 2018 draft of the Master Plan. This new text, underlined below, would be added as the fifth recommendation on page 4-14: 5. Near railroad crossings. street tree placement must be carefully considered to ensure trees do not reduce visibility of warning devices or approaching trains. RTC-29 c-lL nt. E-2[ Scott Donnell, City of Carlsbad Page2of 2 March 4, 2016 COMMENTS landscaped median island" and addition of ·street trees of a conslstenl lype and dimenslon'. This sort of change can potentially impact safety at a rail crossing. Raised medians and ClJTbs provide channelization tha1 may discourage molorists from circumventing gate arms at a rail crossing. Street trees near a ra~road crossing can potentially reduoe visibRity of warning deliices or approaching trains. CPUC staff strongly supports continued oonskleration of a rreoch for the railroad tracks. The construction of a trench would be conslstent with the CPUC's stated policy on reducing the number of at-grade crossings, v.t,ile also supporting the plan's goals to maximize connectivily in the area. CPUC staff is available to discuss potential modification of the at-grade crossings. If you have any questions. please contact Kevin Schumacher at (415) 310-9807. Sincerely, Ken Chiang, P.E. Utilities Engineer _ .... Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch Safety and E.nfofoement Division California Pubfic Utilities Commission CC: State Clearinghouse Don Filippi, NCTD E-1 cont. E-2 RESPONSES Finally, the errata also propose adding text to the last paragraph on page 4-18. This paragraph is part of the discussion in Section 4.3.10 on festival streets/shared space streets. As amended, this paragraph would state (added text is underlined): An advantage of this street type is its flexibility; if it is desired to temporarily close the street for a festival or an evening event, the resultant space is devoid of curbs and trip hazards and can be given over 100% to people. During community engagement, this concept was discussed as a possibility for Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and the railroad tracks. Maintaining the curbs and raised medians near the railroad crossing on Grand Avenue, however. would be necessary to provide channelization that may discourage motorists from circumventing gate arms at the crossing. An adopted City Council goal for FY 2017-2018 is to lower the railroad tracks in a trench through the Village and Barrio. Strategies to implement this goal include developing a project funding plan and initiating preliminary engineering and environmental review. Strategies are supported by the "Carlsbad Village Double Track-Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study," completed by the city and San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) in 2017. Further, key recommendations (Sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2) and a policy (1.5.3 A.4) of the January 2018 draft of the Master Plan also advocate for lowering the railroad tracks in a trench. These efforts all support the California Pub1ic Utilities Commission stated policy on reducing the number of at-grade crossings. RTC-30 F-1 F-f d(ifli51n,tf.5<At~/j{J() 5M>Dkgo. U192101·,rlll (619>699---1900 F.i, (fii9i 69!/·IS<>S -""XI.>;""} "'9,/N/I IICfl'Ol5 0-.e:o.• -o.Vsr., """"""' o,,/1.w, seo,,,, iiY..--wr.is-tl!!l'lfOnGrOo'\' -oo---~""""' .S.,,M.va>, ---COMMENTS Ma,m 11, 2016 Mr. Scott Donnell Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Donnell: File Number 3300300 SU8JECT: Village and Barrio Master Plan Mitigated Negative Dedaration Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Village and Barrio Mane,-Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Our comments are based on policies Included in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) and are submitted from a regional per-Jpective emphasi-zing the need for land use. transportation coordination, and implementation of smart growth and sustainable development principles, The Regional Plan sets forth a mvltimodal approach to m~ting the region's transportation Meds. The1efore. the San Diego Association ot Governments (SANOAG) recommends the following issues be addressed· Rall Corridor The Regional Plan calls for double tracking nearfy all of the Los Angele>-San Dfego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor. lnduding the corridor In the City of Carlsbad (City), by 2035, IJ\lhile the City, SANOAG, aod the North County Transit District continue to work to complete the railroad trench feasibility analysis, there are short-term improvements that can address the uty's concerns, such as safety and noise impacts. SANDAG suggests that a site visibility easement be implemented alo119 the inner Wi!St rail wrve. at Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. This would allow pedestrians to have a dear view of approaching trains. other alternatives 1or the Crty to consider iodude quiet zones and at-grade crossing improvements (e.g. grade separations and pedestrian under/olll!r crossings). Other Consideratlo115 A key goal of the Regional Plan is to focus growth In smart growth opportunity areas. The proposed project Is located within an Existing/Planned Town Center identified on the Smart Growth Concept Map (CB-I). We eocourage, where appropriate, consideration of the followlng tools in evaluating this project based on these SANOAG publications (which can tie found on oor website atsandag.org/igr), F-1 RESPONSES The suggestion of a short-term improvement of a visibility easement along the inner west rail curve at Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive would involve trimming brush in areas owned by NCTD. This area is not maintained by the city. While the city is willing to open discussions with NCTD on this matter, the city does not control the conditions on NCTD property. The possibility of quiet zones and pedestrian under/over crossings also is identified in this letter. While these might address the issue of noise and, to a limited extent, pedestrian safety, they fall short of fully addressing the need for comprehensive safety, neighborhood connectivity, coastal access and environmental improvements. The January 2018 draft of the Master Plan addresses connectivity along the rail corridor with the following policies identified in Section 1.5.3.A (Connectivity): 4. Restore pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connections across the rail line via below or above-grade crossings or, preferably, as a result of lowering the railroad-tracks below street level. RTC-31 F-2L ,nt. COMMENTS • Designing for Smart Growth, Creating Great Places in the San Diego Region • Planning and Deslgning -for Pedestnans, Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Village and Barrio Master P1an MND. H you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 699-1943 or via email at susan.baldwin@sandag.org. Sincerely, SUSAN B. BALDWIN, AICP Senior Regional Planner SBA/KHE/kcu 2 F-1 cont. F-2 RESPONSES 5. Provide, at a minimum, a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Chestnut Avenue; if lowering of the railroad tracks below street level does not proceed, pursue the completion of this particular crossing. As noted in these policies and as emphasized in the key recommendations for the Village and Barrio provided in Sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 of the January 2018 draft of the Master Plan, the city is pursuing trenching as the best approach to provide safe and efficient rail crossings; however, as the above policies note, the January 2018 draft of the Master Plan does not exclude the possibility of other options, if warranted. Comments from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) staff (identified in letter E) support continued consideration of a trench for the railroad tracks, noting that construction of a trench would be consistent with the CPUC's state policy on reducing the number of at-grade crossings, while supporting the Master Plan's goals to maximize connectivity in the area. This comment references the San Diego Association of Government's (SANDAG) San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) and its key goal of focusing growth in smart growth opportunity areas. The Village and Barrio Master Plan encompasses an area designated on SANDAG's Smart Growth Concept Map as "CB-1, Existing/Planned Town Center." The comment encourages, where appropriate, consideration of two smart growth publications on SANDAG's website: Designing for Smart Growth, Creating Great Places in the San Diego Region; and, Planning and Designing for Pedestrians, Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region. City staff has reviewed both publications. As they are today, the Village and Barrio neighborhoods already exhibit many of the characteristics identified in the publications as desirable, such as a walkable street grid, compact development, and a mix of uses. Further, the Village and Barrio Master Plan incorporates many of the recommendations and guidelines of both publications to enhance the qualities of each neighborhood. These enhancements take the form of Master Plan recommendations to improve sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian lighting; provide mobility options to the car; and maintain the existing commercial and residential mix of uses and residential densities. Staff also notes the Regional Plan is cited in the January 2018 draft of the Master Plan Section 1.7 (Laws, Policies and Other Influences), page 1-28. RTC-32 3-1 From, To: Bobl;,dwig SrnU Poore# COMMENTS Cc: Subject: ll:llLlf!SX>Jr:ct· fnl•mi&mllc@f.o•r 8ctJett Wtlkffll!J Village/Barrto Master Plan Inltlal sludy Date: ft1da'f, Maro, U, 20l6 2;50:38 PM httg·//www cartsbadca gov/cJV1cax/6febanklblobdload asox7BtoblD=30099 Scott I do have 1 comment on the initial study. There is one item in the Initial Study (on page S unde.r The Barrio item c.) This item provides for angled parting in the center of the street to provlde additional supply while calmmg the stre€t within the existing curb dimensions. All along I was not very convinced this was a good idea and now Ofie has indicated she is against this destg11 concept. I now support and join with Ofie and ask that this concept be eliminated. We have previously submitted written comments on suggestions to calm the wide streets in the Barrio and ask that our earlier ideas be Incorporated into the plan. We would like to see bulbouts at intersections and possibly mid block as a way to calm the traffic and to provide pedestrians a safer way to cross the street We also suggested to provide landscaping, lighting and wider sidewalks plus defined cross walks. We submitted a graphic showing the location of defined cross walks plus we submitted some graphics for a demonstration project on Walnut between Rooseveft and Madison. Thank you for considering our suggestions. Bob Robert C. Ladwig President LadWig Deslgn Group, Inc. 2234 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: (760) 438-3182 Fax: (760) 438--0173 RESPONSES G-1 This comment refers to a key Barrio recommendation from the November 2015 and April 2016 drafts of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, identified in the Draft Initial Study. This recommendation stated, "consider angled parking in the center of streets south of Carlsbad Village Drive to provide additional supply while calming the street within the existing curb dimensions." Since this recommendation has been deleted from the January 2018 draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, it has also been deleted from the Final Initial Study. RTC-33 COMMENTS Ot:PARTMENTOFTRANS.PORTA1'10~ UISTRIC'l 11 l'lA.N:-.'lt-O lllVISIO~ -!USU Tl\\ U)I\ STil[ET. M.S l•fl '<A'i DllGO.C'/\ 'l'.!llll 1'1101-'t l~NH1-"'·fHf"' l'A.:\ 16l9H.Ss--t:?'I'> TTY 711 March I<>, :?016 Mr. Sco11 DonncU City of Cnrlsb;uJ I t'i3S Farrufay Avenue Cm1.sb:id. CA 9200~-731'1 Dear Mr. Do1111cll! 11-SD-5 l'MVAR Villoge :md Barrio Master Plan MNO I SCll.t,":?016021056 The California. Depanmenl ofTrnnsportntiou <Cnlrrans) received n copy of tnc Dr.ii\ lriiti.,t Stutly/Mit1gatcd Negnli\·c Dedoration for tile pru~d VIiiage and Barriu M.t.<h.'f Plan IOC11tc-d near Interstate 5 (1-5). Caltrnns h:is Ilic (olluwing comments: PotencfaUy the ,1..•;fon uf the maslei plan 1<lcnl1fics a nwnbcr-1•f proposed development ideus that could impac1 51;,le. fucalities. bul docs not 00n1o.in specilie Jc1ail. An~ future proj,M ~pcci-fic <lcwl.,pment lhat mny unpacl state fi:cilitii:s should be npproprfatcly:i11al_)1....J al 1hat 1ime, If you ruwe nny questions, pl..--.ise oonllld Kimberly Dods.nn. uftl,e Culmm, Dcvclc,pmc111 RC\01cw Branch. al (619) 08-8-:!5 IO or by e-mail sait 10 kiinb<.Tly.doJso1~ot.c11.b'OV, ''/Y JACOB~ChSO D<.."'•clopment Review Oranch .. f\t,l\••t.. "~' Ul)l•U' ... "4,, l...a\""1tfl'.itlttd(lrt'iftJl//ll•llUf-flTl#Jldll,\\.,." "'""'~l'o.11"1"'''-""l~au/Sn,.._,u.-RESPONSES H-1 This comment requests that concepts presented in the Village and Barrio Master Plan that may Impact state facilities, such as Interstate 5, be appropriately analyzed when considered for construction. Such development could include, for example, the Master Plan proposal to extend Grand Avenue underneath the freeway. In reply, the goals and policies found in January 2018 draft of the Master Plan Section 1.5.2.C (Mobility and Parking) acknowledge the need for adequate and public evaluation of significant projects presented in the Master Plan as well as the need to perform necessary technical and environmental studies and obtain all necessary approval actions and permits. Furthermore, policies in Section 1.5.3.A {Connectivity) recommend coordination with Caltrans on freeway improvements, including the widening of Interstate 5 (North Coast Corridor Project), to evaluate projects that could both potentially improve and hinder access between the Village and Barrio, the freeway, and neighborhoods to the east. As indicated in the Initial Study under the heading "CEQA Requirements for Subsequent Actions," each subsequent development action would be subject to its own project-specific CEQA review . RTC-34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7294 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS RELATED TO THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN: (1) A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT; OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION, AND RECREATION ELEMENT; AND HOUSING ELEMENT; (2) AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP; (3) AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT; (4) AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP; (5) REPEAL OF THE VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL; (6) ADOPTION OF THE VI LLAGE AND BARRO MASTER PLAN; AND (7) AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO MODIFY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TEXT, LAND USE, ZONING, AND SEGMENT BOUNDARIES FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, WHICH WOULD REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO, AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN THE CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01 (DEV08014) WHEREAS, the City Planner has filed a verified application to adopt the Village and Barrio Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Village and Barrio Master Plan guides land use and development in the city's downtown Village and Barrio, encompassing an approximately 350-acre area generally between Interstate 5 to the east, Laguna Drive to the north, Tamarack Avenue to the south and the railroad corridor and Ocean Street to the west; a portion of this area is in the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, the Village and Barrro Master Plan replaces the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual, the existing zoning regulations applicable to the Barrio, and serves as the Local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio within the plan's boundaries; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.52.150, Public Resources Code Section 30514, and Section 13551 of California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 5.5; said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amenoment, Zone Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program Amendment -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN -GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment-GPA 16-01, is set forth and attached in Exhibit "2A" (changes to the General Plan text) and Exhibit "GPA 16-01" (changes to the General Plan Land Use Map), both dated April 18, 2018; and WHEREAS, Zone Code Amendment -ZCA 16-01 and Zone Change -ZC 16-01, are set forth and attached in the draft City Council Ordinance, Exhibit "2B," dated April 18, 2018; and WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan -MP 14-01 is set forth and attached in the draft City Council Ordinance, Exhibit ''2C,1' dated April 18, 2018; and WEHREAS, the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment -LCPA 14-01 is set forth and attached in Exhibit "20" (amendments to the Local Coastal Program text and LCP Segment Boundaries), Exhibit "LCPA 14-0111 (amendments to the Local Coastal Program land use map), Exhibit "Village and Barrio Master Plan LCP Segment Changes," and previously mentioned Exhibit "2B" (containing ZCA 16-01 and ZC 16-01); note that the zoning applied to the area within the Coastal Zone depicted on Exhibit "ZCA/ZC 16-01" constitutes the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Zoning Map), all dated April 18, 2018; and WHEREAS, all exhibits are on file in the Planning Division and attached hereto; and WHEREAS, LCPA 14-01 was previously circulated for the state-mandated six~week review from February 26, 2016 to April 8, 2016; however, due to project changes, including release of a new draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan and merger of the Village Review and a portion of the Mello II Local Coastal Program segments, LCPA 14-01 has been recirculated for additional review; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the release of the Village and Barrio Master Plan ih January 2018, staff made revisions to the master plan that are provided in errata; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on April 18, 2018, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to PC RESO NO. 7294 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 t he General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program Amendment; and WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the City Planner posted on the Village and Barrio Master Plan website (www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) a table and maps identifying all properties within the boundaries of the Master Plan and relevant land use information for each property, including existing and proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations, zoning, and land use districts; and WHEREAS, the table and maps are on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by t he Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad that: A) The above recitations are true and correct; and B) C) D) The state-mandated six-week review period for the LCPA 14-01 first occurred February 26, 2016 to April 8, 2016; no comments were received in response to this first LCPA notice; LCPA 14-01 was recirculated for public review beginning April 6, 2018; public review will end on May 18, 2018, and any comments received will be considered by the City Planner and presented to the City Council; and The Village Master Plan and Design Manual is recommended for repeal; and Based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14-01/LCPA 14-01-VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, and the err:ata dated April 18, 2018, based on the following findings: Findings: General Plan Amendment 1. 2. GPA 16-01, as well as related applications ZCA 16-01, ZC 16-01, MP 14-01, and LCPA 14-01, are the actions necessary to implement the Carlsbad Community Vision, as stated in the Introduction and Vision Chapter of the General Plan. In particular, the Community Vision's Core Value of Neighborhood Revitalization, Community Design, and Livability calls for revitalizing the Village and rejuvenating the Barrio. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy 2-P .78 states (for the Barrio), "focus revitalization efforts on renovations and fa~ade improvements as well as enhancing the physical infrastructure PC RESO NO. 7294 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. 4. 5. 6. of the community." Master Plan recommendations focus on Barrio streetscape improvements through traffic calming, street trees and pedestrian lighting, and bicycle facilities. The Master Plan maintains existing Barrio land use patterns and densities. Further, a Master Plan goal, as stated in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.1, is to promote the rehabilitation and adaptive re-use of existing Barrio buildings. Mobility Element goals 3-G.2 and 3-G.3 state "improve connectivity for residents, visitors and businesses11 and ''provide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote livable streets," respectively. Consistent with these goals, the Master Plan advocates improved connectivity between the Village and Barrio through recommendations for street trees, better alleys, improved street lighting and wider sidewalks for pedestrians, traffic calming, and improved bicycle facilities. Master Plan development standards also encourage buildings to have a pedestrian orientation. Further, the Master Plan advocates for street connections that could be realized through trenching of the railroad tracks and through 1-5 North Coast Corridor Project improvements. In addition, the plan improves connectivity through a number of recommended community gathering spaces, such as the Grand Avenue Promenade, and improvements at and near the intersection of Roosevelt Street and Walnut Avenue in the Barrio. Sustainability Element Goal 9-G.3 states, "promote energy efficiency and conservation in the community." The Master Plan promotes compact, urban growth in a walkable environment. This is accomplished through recommendations, standards, and strategies encouraging efficient use of land and buildings, streets and parking, buildings with a pedestrian-orientation, and mobility improvements that benefit all forms of access in the Village and Barrio. Housing Element Goal 10-G.2 (Housing Opportunities) states, "new housing developed with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated city and regional growth." The Master Plan is consistent with General Plan densities specified for the Village and Barrio. These densities permit a variety of housing types at densities from 8 to 35 units/acre. Housing Element Policy 10-P.13 (Housing Opportunities) states, ''encourag·e increased integration of housing with nonresidential development where appropriate.'' Master Plan development standards permit mixed use development in many districts. Zone Code Amendment/Zone Change 7. 8. ZCA 16-01 and ZC 16-01 reflect sound principles of good planning in that they make necessary and logical changes to the text and map of the Zoning Ordinance to reflect MP 14-01 in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. ZCA 16-01 and ZC 16-01 are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare in that changes are limited to revisions that recognize MP 14-01; further, revisions to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.35 streamline and improve application of requirements by deferring to MP 14-01 for many applicable requirements. Village and Barrio Master Plan PC RESO NO. 7294 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. 10. 11. 12. MP 14-01, which replaces the Village Master Plan. and Design Manual, is consistent with Land Use and Community Design Element Policy 2-P.69, which states in part, ''comprehensively update the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan." MP 14-01 provides guidance in interpreting City planning and zoning requirements for properties within the Village and Barrio, as well as specific principles, standards, regulations, and design guidelines that may be applied to proposed improvements within the Master Plan area. These components of the Master Plan have been developed to be consistent with and complementary to the General Plan, the Local Coastal Plan, and the City's Zoning Code. Permit and processing requirements, for example, are similar to those throughout the rest of Carlsbad and, consistent with the General Plan standards and guidelines, are proposed to enhance the character of the Village and Barrio. MP 14-01 contains parking standards and strategies that are consistent with the Carlsbad Village, Barrio, and Beach Area Parking Study Parking Management Plan, accepted by the City Council in September 2017. As both the Local Coastal Ptogram land use plan and implementation program for properties within the Village and Barrio Master Plan boundaries, MP 14-01 effectively establishes a vision, goals, policies, and standards for the area that advance and implement Coastal Act objectives for public access and visitor-serving uses in a clear, effective manner. Local Coastal Program Amendment 13. 14. 15. LCPA 14-01 is required to bring the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program into consistency with ZCA 16- 01/ZC 16-01 and MP 16-01. LCPA 14-01 meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amehded by this amendment, in that the amendments ensure consistency with the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance and do not conflict with any coastal zone regulations, land use designations or policies, with which development must comply. LCPA 14-01 reflects sound principles of good planning in that the merging of a portion of the Mello II segment with the Village Area segment ensures consistent application of the Local Coastal Program in the Coastal Zone portion of the Village and Barrio Master Plan. PC RESO NO. 7294 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on April 18, 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MARTELL MONTGOMERY, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 7294 -6- EXHIBIT "2A" April 18, 2018 Village and Barrio Master Plan General Plan Amendment -GPA 16-01 Text Changes to General Plan {Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.) ~ Amendments to the Land Us~ and Community Design Element --: 1. On page 2-14, amend the "Non-Residential and Mixed Use" section as follows: Village (V) Village-Barrio (V-B} This designation applies to the heart of "old" Carlsbad, in the area sometimes also referred to as the "downtownL-~" as well as the adjacent Barrio neighborhood. Retail stores, offices, financial institutions, restaurants, visitor-serving facilities, residential uses, as well as mixed uses are permitted. The Village and Barrio area is regulated by the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual Village and Barrio Master Plan. 2. On page 2-15, amend Figure 2-1, "Land Use Map," revise the legend and map to delete the "V, Village" designation and replace it with the "V-8, Village-Barrio" designation. Note: Changes are shown on a separate exhibit. 3. On page 2-18, Table 2-3, "Density and Intensity Standards," add a row describing "Village- Barrio" and modify the existing row describing "Village" as follows: LAND USE LABEL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM DESIGNATION DENSITY RANGE MANAGEMENT DENSITY USED PERMITTED {MINIMUM2 TO CONTROL IN THE FAR MAXIMUM POINT HOUSING DWELLING DENISTY1 ELEMENT2 UNITS/ACRE) (DWELLING (DWELLING UNITS/ACRE) UNITS/ACRE) Residential Village-Barrio V-B BP District: 23-30 25 23 -- BC District: 8-15 11.5 ~ Non-residential and Mixed Use Village Village-Barrio ¥-V-B Districts 1 4: ~ -Districts 1 4: 1.23 - FC Districts: 28-VC, FC 35 Districts: 28 Districts s 9: VG, -Districts 5 9: - HOSP, PT VG, HOSP, PT Districts: 18-23 Districts: 18 4. On page 2-32, amend the "Village" section (beginning on the previous page) as follows: The Village Master Plan and Design Mam,alVillage and Barrio Master Plan, adopted in 2018, provides~ vision and guidance for design, land use, and redevelopment, and includes development standards and 1 EXHIBIT "2A" April 18, 2018 design guidelines. There are additional opportunities to expand on key elements like public art and identity through a signage and way-finding scheme as well as an expanded public arts program. 5. On page 2-32, amend the last paragraph of the "Barrio" section as follows: In 2018, the Village and Barrio Master Plan was adopted to provide a vision, standards and guidelines for both the Village and Barrio. The master plan As hiture de1.•elopment/redevelopA1ent occurs in tl=ie Barrio, it 'Nill be important tl=lat future improvements are sensitii,ie torecognizes the neighborhood's walkable, residential character, its history and cultural resources, and its objectives for calming traffic and increasing connections with the Village and the beach. It will be important that future improvements are sensitive to these characteristics and objectives. 6. On pages 2-50 and 2-51, amend 'Village'' policies 2-P. 69 and 2-P. 75 as follows: 2-P.69 The Village Master Plan and Design Manual Village and Barrio Master Plan is the guide for land use planning and design in the Village. Comprehensively update tl=le Village Master Plan and Design Manual as necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2-P.75 Address parking demand by finding additional areas to provide parking for the Village and beach areas, and by developing creative parking management strategies, such as shared and leased parking, on-street parking reconfiguration, maximum parl<ing standards, "smart" metering, transportation demand management strategies, utilizing on street parking for re use of existing buildings, etc. Evaluate and manage parking in the Village through regular monitoring of parking data and programs such as the Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. 7. On page 2-52, amend "Barrio'' policy 2-P. 77 as follows: 2-P.77 Promote new investment by allowing opportunities for medium and high-density infill residential development, strategically located in the neighborhood consistent with the 4=aM Use MapVillage and Barrio Master Plan. Ensure that development is designed to enhance neighborhood quality, character, and vitality, and is sensitive to historic and cultural resources. ·;-_ Amendments to the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element: 1. On pages 4-49 and 4-50, amend "Open Space Framework" policies 4-P.6 and 4-P. 7 as follows: 4-P.6 Require that adjustment of the boundaries of any open space area shown on the Land Use Map be allowed only if all of the following criteria are met: a. The proposed open space area is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Land Use Map; and b. The proposed open space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater than that depicted on the Land Use Map; and c. The proposed open space area is contiguous or within close proximity to open space shown on the Land Use Map. 2 EXHIBIT '12A" April 18, 2018 The City Council may also adjust the boundary of any open space area shown on the Land Use Map if it finds that the adjustment is necessary to mitigate a sensitive environmental area that is impacted by development, provided the open space boundary modification preserves open space at a 2 to 1 ratio (proposed acreage to existing acreage) and is within close proximity to the original area of open space. Additionally, the City Council may exempt public rights-of-way from the open space boundary adjustment requirements. However, environmental analysis shall be performed for all proposed public right-of-way improvements, and if determined that there are significant adverse impacts to the value of the open space system, those impacts shall be mitigated. The adjustment of open space boundaries shall not result in the exchange of environmentally constrained lands that are designated open space on the Land Use Map for lands that are not environmentally constrained. Properties designated "VBO-P" in the Village and Barrio Master Plan, which applies to Chase Field and Maxton Brown. Magee, and Pine Avenue parks, shall be considered open space areas and equivalent to those open space areas designated on the land Use Map. 4-P.7 Maintain an inventory of all open space lands, including sites designated as open space on the Land Use Map, sites designated "VBO-P" in the Village and Barrio Master Plan, sites dedicated in fee title or easement as open space, and school recreation areas. ' :--Af'!lendments to the Housing Element~_ ~ . _· _:: :_----. -. 1. On page 10-53, amend item 3 of the "Reasonable Capacity in the Village" section {beginning on the previous page) as follows: Several of +!he Village and Barrio Master Plan land use designations districts permit mixed-use development, in which residences are likely to be smaller apartments or condominiums on the upper floors. While the city encourages mixed-use projects in the Village, development of stand-alone high- density residential projects is also permitted and would yield even more units. To account for non- residential uses, a conservative 50 percent of the potent ial capacity of units is assumed, while the other 50 percent of developable area could be used for non-residential l.lSes. 2. On page 10-54, amend the second paragraph under the "Reasonable Capacity in the Barrio" section as follows: Though property values in the Barrio area remain high, the neighborhood could benefit from additional investment. Since 2000, the city has made a number of substantial public improvements in the area totaling more than $28 million, including utility undergrounding, storm drain and street improvements, and park and senior center enhancements. In early 2018, the city will complete a new community center and community garden in the area as well, an additional $8.6 million investment. Carlsbad considers the area appropriate for redevelopment at standards and densities similar_to the maximum densities approved for the Village. Therefore, the city believes consideration of a lot.size smaller_than 0.24 acre, as_is_the_minimum_in locations outside the Village and Barrio <H=ea5Master Plan, is 3 EXHIBIT "2A" April 18, 2018 acceptable. In the Barrio, the minimum parcel size included in the sites inventory for lower and moderate income housing is 0.16 acre, except for the Harding Street Neighbors, LP parcels described below, and the average is 0.44 acre. 3. On page 10-59, Table 10-28, "Land Use Designations and Affordability," (1) add rows describing "Village-Barrio" in the "above moderate" and "extremely low, very low, and low income'' categories and (2) modify existing rows describing "Village (V)" as follows: GENERAL PLAN LANO IMPLEMENTING RESIDENTIAL GROWTH APPROPRIATE USE DESIGNATION ZONING DENSITY MANAGEMENT INCOME LEVELS DISTRICT RANGE CONTROL (MINIMUM POINT DENISTY AND (DU/AC) MAXIMUM) (DU/AC) Village-Barrio {V-B} V-B BC District: 8-11.5 Above 15 Moderate Village (V) Village-V-RV-8 District S 9: ;' n/a5 Moderate Barrio (V-B} ~HOSP, PT, VG Districts: 18-23 Village-Barrio {V-B) V-B BP District: 23-25 Extreme!~ Low, 30 Verv-Low, Low Village (V) Village-V-R V-B Districts 1 4: n/a5 Extremely Low, Barrio {V-B) ~FC.VC: Very-Low, Low 28-35 4. On page 10-59, following Table 10-28, amend the first paragraph as follows: The General Plan's R-30 and Village Village-Barrio designations accommodate lower incomes. The R- 30 designation requires a minimum of 23 units per acre and permits up to 30 units per acre. When a density bonus is applied to the R-30 designation, the maximum density can potentially reach 40 units per acre (at a maximum density bonus of 35 percent under state density bonus law). Additionally, the city's ordinances allow for density increases that exceed state density bonus law, as illustrated by the Tavarua Senior Apartments shown in Table 10-27. 5. On page 10-77, under the "Subsidies" section (beginning on the previous page), amend the first full paragraph as follows: As discussed with developers during a 2011 developer forum held as part of the General Plan and Housing Element update process, development above 23-25 units per acre would typically necessitate subterranean parking, which substantially increases the average subsidy required to make the units affordable to lower-income households. The cost savings from economies of scale for housing production do not usually break even until the density is substantially increased to beyond 30 units per acre. To expand the capacity for additional development, at appropriate locations, the city permits development in the Village at up to 35 units per acre and within the R-30 land use designation and BP 4 EXHIBIT "2A" April 18, 2018 District of the Village and Barrio Master Plan density bonuses/increases can be granted to allow densities above 30 units per acre. 6. On page 10-79, under the "Land Use Controls" section (beginning on the previous page), amend the first full paragraph and the second paragraph as follows: Carlsbad's Land Use and Community Design Element establishes six residential designations (excluding the Village-Barrio designation) ranging in density from 1.0 dwelling unit per acre to 30.0 dwelling units per acre (Table 10-33). The R-30 land use designation was added to the General Plan in February 2013 and allows up to 30 dwelling units per acre. In the Village and Barrio, a separate land use designation applies (V Village V-B -Village-Barrio). This designation permits both residential and non-residential uses. Depending on the district within the Village and Barrio, the minimum and maximum density densities*" are 8-15 units per acre (BC District). 18-23 units per acre {districts S 9HOSP, PT, and VG Districts), 23-30 units per acre (BP District) or 28-35 units per acre (districts 1 4FC and VC Districts) and the maximum density permitted is 23 or 35 units per acre, tespecti>Jely. 7. On page 10-79, amend Table 10-33, "Land Use Designations and Implementing Zones, 11 by modifying the existing row describing "V -Village" as follows: LAND USE DESIGNATION ALLOWED DENSITY GMCP (DU/ AC) IMPLEMENTING (DU/AC) ZONE \I ., l.£illage V-8 -Village Dist. 1 4: 28 35 Dist. S 9: BC District: ¥-RV-B Barrio 18 23 max BC District: 8-11.5; BP 15; PT, HOSP, VG Districts: District: 25; 18-23; BP District: 23-30; PT, HOSP, VG, FC, VC Districts: 28-35 FC, VC Districts: n/a2 8. On page 10-841 under the "Mitigating Opportunities" section, amend the first paragraph as follows: The capacity (number of units) for each site appropriate for lower and moderate income housing identified in the sites inventory in Section 10.3 assumes development will take place at the minimum density of the density range or at the minimum density specified5• Therefore, and except for properties designated "V Village," in the PT, HOSP, VG, FC, and VC Districts of the Village and Barrio Master Plan (see Table 10-33}. none of the sites require the use of excess dwelling units to accommodate the RHNA. In the Village Village and Barrio Master Plan districts identified above, since all residential development requires an allocation of excess dwelling units, the city has specifically reserved 759 excess units (as of July 2016) for this purpose. As a result, the Growth Management Plan and GMCP density do not serve as constraints to development. 9. On page 10-89, under the "Alternative Housing" section, amend the second paragraph as follows: 5 EXHIBIT "2A'' April 18, 2018 To implement Program 3.13 in the 2005-2010 Housing Element and expand housing opportunities for extremely-low-income households, in September 2012 the City Council approved an amendment to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual to conditionally permit and establish standards for "managed living units" in certain districts of the Village area. A managed living unit is designed and intended for transient occupancy of daily, weekly or longer tenancy or permanent residency, providing sle~ping or living facilities for one or two persons, in which a full bathroom and a partial kitchen are provided. The Village and Barrio Master Plan, which replaced the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, maintains the same standards for managed living units and expands the area where they are conditionally permitted. 10. On page 10-92, amend footnote 8 of Table 10-36, "Basic Residential Development Standards," as follows: 8 In the Village Review (V R) Village-Barrio (V-B) Zone, development standards vary by district. Additionally, the City Council may modify standards on a case-by-case basis, in order to facilitate affordable housing or promote ''green building" (e.g., LEED certification) design to enable a significant public benefit, such as exceeding minimum energy efficiency, renewable energy, and/or Climate Action Plan (CAP) consistency requirements. 11. On page 10-93, under the "Parking" section, amend the first paragraph as follows: Parking requirements in Carlsbad vary depending on housing type and anticipated parking needs (Table 10-37). The city's parking standards are the same as or lower than many communities in the San Diego region and therefore do not serve to constrain residential development.7 Furthermore, the city has a demonstrated history of making concessions (i.e. reduced parking requirements) in order to facilitate affordable housing development. The city has also approved reduced parking standards and increased densities to foster redevelopment in the Village. For example, in portions of the Village, as per the Village and Barrio Master Plan outside the Coastal Zone, one parking space is required for studio and one bedroom units and twe-one and a half spates are required for two or more bedroom units; there is no requirement for guest parking and no distinction between rental and ownership units. 12. On page 10-93, amend the title of Table 10-37 as follows: TABLE 10-37: PARKING REQUIREMENTS (OUTSIDE THE VILL/\GE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN BOUNDARIES) 13. On pages 10-118, under "Program 2.4: Energy Conservation, II amend the second and fourth bullet points as follows: • In the Village, encourage energy conservation and higher density development by the modification of development standards (e.g. parking standards, building setbacks, height, and increased density) as necessary to: Enable developments to exceed minimum energy efficiency, renewable energy and/or minimum CAP consistency requirements qualify for silver level or higher LHD (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification, or a comparable green 6 EXHIBIT ,;2A" April 18, 2018 building rating, and to maintain the financial feasibility of the development with such certification. -Achieve densities at or above the minimum required if the applicant can provide acceptable evidence that application of the development standards precludes development at such densities. • Encourage infill development in urbanized areas, particularly in the Village and Barrio, through implementation of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual Village and Barrio Master Plana-R€1 the allo•.,•ed density ranges in the Barrio. 14. On page 10-121, under "Program 3.2: Excess Dwelling Units," amend the second paragraph as follows: Based on analysis conducted in Section 10.4 (Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities), the city can accommodate its 2010-2020 RHNA without the need to utilize excess dwelling units (except for properties in certain districts of the Village and Barrio Master Plandesignated "V Village") to accommodate the RHNA at each household income level. In the Village, since all residential development requires an allocation of excess dwelling units, the city has specifically reserved 759 excess units (as of July 2016) for this purpose. 7 --Coas1al Zone Boundary 0 Proposed Master Plan Boundary Existing General Plan land Use Designations: R-1.5. Res1dential 0-1.5 du/ac R-4, Residential 0-4 du/ac R-8. Residential 4-6 du/ac R-15, Residenlial 6-15 ril/ac V, Vilage -GC, General Commercial -VC, Visitor Commercial O,Offia, -P, Public -OS, Open Space • TC. Transportatioo Comdor GPA 16-01 -• Coastal Zone Boundary 0 Proposed Master Plan Boundary Proposed General Plan land Use Designations: V-8, Vilage-Banio R-1.5, Residential 0-1.5du/ac R-4, Residential 0-4 du/ac R-8. Residential 4-8 dulac R-15. Residential B-15 d\Jlac = R-15/0. Residential8-15du/ac/Office -R-23. Resioontial 15-23 du/ac • TC. Transportatlon Candor Exhibit "GPA 16-01" April 18, 2018 Village and Barrio Master Plan ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "28" APRIL 18, 2018 AN ORDINANCE C>F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REVISE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP, TO RECOGNIZE AND IMPLEMENT THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, WHICH WOULD REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO, AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN THE CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN CASE NO.: ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01 (DEV08014) WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Zoning Code is the implementing ordinance of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, and therefore, an amendment to the Zoning Code also constitutes an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has prepared a Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 16~01, Zone Change ZC 16-01, and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 14-01 pursuant to Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 13551 of California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 5 to revise various sections of the Zoning Ordinance, including the zoning map; and WHEREAS, the recommended amendments are necessary to recognize and implement the Village and Barrio Master Plan (MP 14-01), which establishes the land use classifications, development standards, procedures and guidelines for that unique area of the city within the Master Plan's boundaries and which replaces the Village Master Plan and Design Manual; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Coastal Commission Regulations, a six-week public review period for LCPA 14-01 occurred from February 26, 2016 to April 18, 2016; however, due to project changes, LCPA 14.-01 was recirculated for additional review from April 6, 2018 to May 18, 2018; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2018, the Planning Commissioh held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 recommending to the City Council that ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01 be approved; and EXHIBIT "2811 APRIL 18, 2018 WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the City Planner posted on the Village and Barrio Master Plan website {www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) a table and maps identifying all properties within the boundaries of the Master Plan and relevant land use information for each property, including existing and proposed General Plan land use designations, zoning, and land use districts; and WHEREAS, the table and maps are oh file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the ___ day of ____ _, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered all factors, including written public comments, if any, related to ZCA 16-02/ZC 16-01/LCPA 14-01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, ordains as follows that: 1. The above recitations are true and correct. 2. The findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. 3. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.010 is amended to read as follows: In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the uses of land and buildings, to regulate and restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces about buildings, and to regulate the density of population, thirty-six classes of zones and overlay zones are established by this title to be known as follows: C-1-Neighborhood Commercial Zone C-2-General Commercial Zone C-F-Community Facilities Zone C-L-Local Shopping Center Zone C-M-Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial Zone CR-A/OS-Cannon Road-Agricultural/Open Space Zone C-T-Commercial Tourist Zone E-A-Exclusive Agricultural Zone L-C-Limited Control Zone M -lndustrial Zone O-Office Zone O-S-Open Space Zone P-C-Planned Community Zone P-M-Planned Industrial Zone P-U-Public Utility Zone R-1-One-Family Residential Zone R-2-Two-Family Residential Zone R-3-Multiple-Family Residential Zone R-A-Residential Agricultural Zone R-E-Residential Estate Zone R-P-Residential-Professional Zone R-T-Residential Tourist Zone R-W-Residential Waterway Zone RD-M-Residential Density-Multiple Zone RM HP-Residential Mobile Home Park T-C-Transportation Corridor Zone V-8-Village-Barrio Zone BAO-Beach Area Overlay Zone Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment C/V-SO-Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone F-P -Floodplain Overlay Zone H-O-Hospital Overlay Zone Q-Qualified Development Overlay Zone S-P-Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone EXHIBIT "28" APRIL 18, 2018 4. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.020 (4) is amended to read as follows: EXHIBIT "28" APRIL 18, 2018 (4). The V-B, P-U and P-C zones have special conditions for their application and shall be considered as more restrictive than other zones. 5. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.030, the zoning map, is amended as shown on Exhibit "ZCA/ZC 16-01" dated April 18, 2018, and attached hereto. 6. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 (V-R Village Review Zone) is amended to read as follows: Chapter 21.35 V-B VILLAGE-BARRIO ZONE Sections: 21.35.010 Intent and purpose. 21.35.020 Incorporation of Village and Barrio Master Plan by reference. 21.35.030 Land affected by this chapter. 21.35.040 Village and Barrio Master Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code compliance. 21.35.050 General regulations. 21.35.060 Permitted uses. 21.35.070 Permit required. 21.35.080 Findings of fact. 21.35.090 Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan. 21.35.010 Intent and purpose. The village-barrio zone is intended to establish land use classifications, development standards, procedures and guidelines for that unique area of the city described in the Village and Barrio Master Plan and designated "V-B, Village-Barrio" on the zoning map. 21.35.020 Incorporation of the Village and Barrio Master Plan by reference. The Village and Barrio Master Plan1 as adopted by City Council Ordinance CS-XXX on XXXX, 2018, and as approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission on XXXX, XXXX, is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into this chapter. 21.35.030 Land affected by this chapter. This chapter shall apply only to lands located within the boundaries of the Village and Barrio Master Plan and zoned "V-B, Village-Barrio" on the zoning map. EXHIBIT "2B" APRIL 18, 2018 21.35.040 Compliance with the Village and Barrio Master Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Projects developed pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, and all app licable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to those provisions of Titles 18, 19, 20 and 21. 21.35.050 General regulations. Except as otherwise provided by the Village and Barrio Master Plan, the regulations of this title which apply to uses generally or generally to all zoning classifications shall apply to property and uses in this zone. 21.35.060 Permitted uses. The development standards of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, including the permitted uses table, shall identify the permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses in the V-B zone. Any use not identified in the permitted uses table is not permitted unless the city planner determines that such use falls within the vision and intent of the Master Plan district in which it is proposed and is substantially similar to an allowed use in the district. Further, the city planner shall not find that a use substantially similar to an expressly prohibited use is permitted in any district. 21.35.070 Permit required. Unless specifically exempt from a discretionary permit pursuant to the Village and Barrio Master Plan and Section 21.201.060, no building permit or other entitlement shall be issued for any development or use in the V-B zone unless there is a valid site development plan, conditional use permit, coastal development permit or other discretionary permit as required by the Village and Barrio Master Plan and as approved for the property. 21.35.080 Findings of fact. No determination or decision shall be macle pursuant to this chapter unless the decision-making authority finds, in addition to any other findings otherwise required for the project, that the project is consistent with the general plan, this code, as applicable, the Village and Barrio Master Plan , and the Local Coastal Program, as applicable. 21.35.090 Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan. Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan shall be deemed to be amendments to this chapter; provided, however, that such amendments are processed and noticed in a manner which meets the requirements of Chapter 21.52 of this code and are approved and adopted by city council ordinance. EXHIBIT 1'28" APRIL 18, 2018 7. Carlsbad Municipal Code Sections 21.41.010 8. and C. are amended to read as follows: B. Properties and uses in the village-barrio (V-B) zone are regulated first by the sign standards of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, and then, to the extent not covered by said master plan, by the provisions of this chapter. C. Signs on city property, both within the V-B zone and other zones, are controlled by other provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, not by this chapter. 8. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.41.090 is amended to read as follows: A. The following sign restrictions apply to properties in the coastal zone except the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Village-Barrio segments. If there is a conflict between the coastal zone sign standards of this section and any regulations of this chapter, the standards of this section shall prevail. Otherwise, within the coastal zone, the sign regulations of this chapter shall apply. 1. Each business or establishment shall be entitled to one fa<;ade sign . 2. Each shopping complex shal l have only one directory sign which shall not exceed fifteen feet in height, including mounding. 3. Monument sign height including mounding shall not exceed eight feet and shall app ly where three or fewer commercial establishments exist on a parcel. 4. Tall freestanding and roof signs shall not be allowed. 5. Off-premises signs shall not be allowed. 9. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.44.020 Tabl e A regarding number of off-street parking spaces required for "financial institutions and professional offices," is amended to read as follows: Financial institutions Medical Office 1 space/200 square feet of gross floor area and professional offices Financial institutions 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area Other office uses 1 space/250 squar-e feet of gross floor area Office uses Within 300 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area feet of the boundary of the village-barrio zone EXHIBIT "28" APRI L 18, 2018 10. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.040 Table A and footnote 8 are amended to read as follows: Table A Pt;?rmitted Residential Uses Legend: P = Permitted. (#) Number within parentheses= Permitted only in certain circumstances. X = Not permitted. Zone Residential Use One-Family Dwelling or Twin-Home on Small Lots (one unit per lot) Condominium Project R-1 (1) or (4) One-family dwellings -(3) or (4) Two-family dwellings -(1) or (4) Multiple-family dwellings -(4) R-2 p One-family or two-family dwellings -P Multiple-family dwellings -(2) or (4) R-3 p p RO-M p p R-W X p R-P (5) (6) RMHP p p P-C (7) (7) V-8 (8) (8) Accessory (9) (9) Uses Notes: (I) Permitted when the project site is contiguous to a higher Intensity land use designation or zone, or an existing project of comparable or higher density. (2) Permitted when the proposed project site is contiguous to a lot or lots zone R-3, R-T, R-P, C-1, C-2, C-M or M, but in no case shall the project site consist of more than one lot nor be more than ninety feet in width, whichever is less. (3) Permitted when developed as two or more detached units on one lot. (4) Permitted when the project site contains sensitive biological resources as identified in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. In the case ofa condomlnium project, attached or detached units may be permitted when the site contains sensitive biological resources. (5) Permitted when the R-P zone implements the RMH land use designation. (6) Permitted when the R-P zone implements the RMH or RH land use designations. (7) Permitted uses shall be consistent with the master plan. (8) Refer to the Village and Barrio Master Plan for permitted uses. (9) Refer to Table F for permitted accessory uses. EXHIBIT "2B" APRIL 18, 2018 11. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.140 is amended by deleting subsection (k). 12. That the use chart in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.83.040 and footnote 4 are amended to read as follows: "P" indicates that the use is permitted in the zone. "LDCP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a large family day care permit, processed in accordance with Section 21.83.050 of this chapter. "MCUP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a minor conditional use permit (process one) processed in accordance with Chapter 21.42 of this title. "CUP" indicates that the use is permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit (process two) processed in accordance with Chapter 21.42 of this title. "X" indicates that the use is prohibited in the zone. Small Family Day Care Large Family Day Care Home (8 or fewer Home (14 or fewer Zoning children) children) Child Day Care Center R-A, R-E, E-A p LDCP (1) X R-1 p LDCP (1) X R-2 p LDCP (1) X R-3, RD-M, R-P p LDCP (1) MCUP(2)(3) R-T, R-W, RMHP p LDCP (1) X 0 X X MCUP(2)(3} H-O X X P(2) C-F X X MCUP(2)(3) C-1, C-2, C-L X X P(2) P-M, C-M X X CUP(S) M, P-U, O-S, L-C, T-C, C-T X X X V-8, P-C (4) LDCP (1)(4) (2)(3)(4) Notes: (1) Permitted only when the large family day care home is located on a lot occupied by a detached, single-family dwelling, subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.050 of this chapter. (2) Permitted subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.080 of this chapter. EXHIBIT "2811 APRIL 18, 2018 (3) Child day care centers are allowed as a permitted use (no conditional use permit or minor conditional use permft required) within existing buildings on developed church or school sites, subject to the provisions of Section 21.83.080 ofthis chapter. (4) Permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (Village and Barrio Master Plan or designated master plan). (5) Permitted subject to the provisions of Sections 21.83.060 and 21.83.080 of this chapter. 13. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.84.040 Table A and footnote 3 are amended to read as follows: Table A Zones Where Housing for Senior Citizens Is Permitted Zone Housing for Senior Citizens R-3 MSDP/SDP1 R-P MSDP/SDP1· 2 R-T MSDP/SDP1 R-W MSDP/SDP1 RD-M MSDP/SDP1 V-B See note 3, below P-C See note 3, below Note: Housing for senior citizens is prohibited in those zones not indicated. Notes: Housing for senior citizens with four units or less shall be subject to the approval of a minor site development plan, and housing for senior citizens with five units or more shall be subject to the approval of a site development plan. 2 The city may approve a minor site development plan or site development plan for housing for senior citizens on property in the R-P zone where the general plan applicable to such property permits residential uses. a May be permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (i.e., in V-B zone -Village and Barrio Master Plan, and in P-C zone -applicable master plan) and the provisions of this chapter. 14. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.201.080 Cl.a.iii is amended to read as follows: iii. Projects that require a minor site development plan, minor conditional use permit, or minor variance, pursuant to the Village and Barrio Master Plan. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TH IS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the City Clerk shall EXHIBIT "2B" APRIL 18, 2018 certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of t he ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption or upon Coastal Commission approval of LCPA 14-01, whichever occurs later; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. EXHIBIT "28" APRIL 18, 2018 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the __ _ day of ___ ~ 2018, and thereafter PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the ___ day of ________ _, 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney MATT HALL, Mayor BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk (SEAL) --Coastal Zone Boundary 0 Proposed Master Plan Boundary Existing Zoning Districts: R-1. One Family Residential R-3. Multi Family Residenti.al RD-M, Residenlial Density-Multiple R-P-Q, Residential Professional 0, Office -C-1 or C-2, General Neighborhood Commercial -C-T, Commercial Tourist P-U, Public Ulifily -V-R. Village Review P-C, Planned Communily -OS, Open Space -T-C, Transportation Comdoo-NOTE: The area depicted within Ille Coastal Zone constitutes the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Zoning Map. Palh: J:~odldSlptallning'MapUpdale'6PA 16-0l_ZCA 16-0l__ZC 1&-0l_MP 14-0ucPA 14-01....MCA 1&-011ZCA_ZC_11H11.l!IKII ZCA I ZC 16-01 --Coastal Zone Bot.mary 0 Proposed Master Plan Boundary Proposed Zoning Districts: V.B. Village-Barrio R-1, One Family Residential R-3, Mutt! Family Residential RD-M, Residential Density-Multiple R-P-0, Residential Professional 0,0ffice -C-1 or C-2, Gene.al Neighborflood Commercial -C-T, Commercial Tourist P-U. Public Utility P-C, Planned Community -OS, Open Space -T-C, Transportalion Comdor Exhibit "ZCA / ZC 16-0111 Apr.ii 18, 2018 Village and Barrio Master Plan ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "2C" APRIL 18, 2018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING THE VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL AND APPROVING THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN, MP 14-01, WHICH WOULD REGULATE DEVELOPMENT AND LA.ND USE FOR THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO1 AN APPROXIMATELY 350-ACRE AREA GENERALLY WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND TAMARACK AVENUE IN THE CITY'S NORTHWEST QUADRANT AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CASE NO.: VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN MP 14-01 (DEV08014) WHEREAS, MP 14-01 constitutes a request for a Master Plan as (1) shown on Exhibit "MP 14- 01" dated April 18, 2018, and attached hereto and (2) contained in the Village and Barrio Master Plan on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the release of the Village and Barrio Master Plan in January 2018, staff made revisions to the master plan that are provided in errata; and WHEREAS, for properties in the Coastal Zone, portions of MP 14-01, in combination with other city ordinances, also serve as the Local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2018, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider MP 14-01 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 recommending the repeal of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and the approval of MP 14- 01; and WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the City Planner posted on the Village and Barrio Master Plan website (www.carlsbadca.gov/villagebarrio) a table and maps identifying all properties within the boundaries of the Master Plan and relevant land use information for each EXHIBIT ''2C" APRIL 18, 2018 property, including existing and proposed General Plan land use designations, zoning, and land use districts; and WHEREAS, the table and maps are on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the ___ day of ___ _, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered all factors, including written public comments, if any, related to MP 14-01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, ordains as follows that: 1. The above recitations are true and correct. 2. The findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7294 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. 3. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual is repealed. 4. MP 14-01, on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference, is approved and replaces the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. MP 14-01 shall establish the land use vision, goa ls, policies, standards, guidelines, permitted and prohibited uses, and other provisions for the use and development of all property within the boundaries of MP 14-01, and all development within the plan area shall conform to its provisions. 5. MP 14-01 replaces the general zo ning regulations applicable to those portions outside the boundaries of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual and within the boundaries of MP 14-01. 6. The approval of MP 14-01 includes errata dated April 18, 2018, and any subsequent modifications, revisions, or additions approved by the City Council. EXHIBIT "2C'' APRIL 18, 2018 7. Upon the effective date, MP 14-01 shall apply to development applications not yet approved by the City of Carlsbad. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption or upon Coastal Commission approval of LCPA 14-01, whichever occurs later; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance-and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Cou ncil on the __ _ day of ____ ~ 2018, and thereafter PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the ___ day of ________ _, 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney MATT HALL, Mayor BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk (SEAL) 0 Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan Boundary Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual Boundary (Master Plan To Be Repealed and Replaced by Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan) 0 ---=====::J Feet 0 800 Pa1h: J:\cbgis roducts\planning\MapUpdate\GPA 16-0l_ZCA 16-01_ZC 16-0LMP 14-01_LCPA 14-01_MCA 16-01\MP_14-01.mxd MP 14-01 Exhibit "MP 14-01" April 18, 2018 Village and Barrio Master Plan Village and Barrio Master Plan Local Coastal Program Amendment -LCPA 14-01 Text changes to Local Coastal Program Exhibit "2D" April 18, 2018 {Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.) I. Proposed changes to Chapter I {Introduction), Section D: D. History The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program consists of five-six geographic segments: the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of (all acreage figures are approximate) 1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello II segment with ~5.250 acres; the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment with 200 acres; the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment with 1,000 acres, and the Village-Barrio segment wlth 150 acres. The Village-Barrlo segment has its own land use plan and implementation program and is not Mowe,.•er, since the City assumed permit authority fur the Village Area Redm,•elopment segment in December of 1988 it will not be included in this document. See Exhibit 1-1, on page 5, for segment locations. Pursuant to the Public Resources Code Sections 30170 and 30171, the Coastal Commission was required to prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions of the City. This resulted in the two LCP segments known as the Mello I and Mello II segments {State legislator Henry Mello sponsored the legislation which created sections 30170 and 30171}. The Mello I and II LCPs were approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June 1981, respectively. The Agua Hedionda land use plan was prepared by the City and approved by the Coastal Commission on July 1, 1982. Prepa ration of the Mello I, Mello II and Agua Hedionda segments resulted in a number of issues and conflicts between the City and Commission over the years. These segments cover a good portion of the city's coastal zone and contain substantial amounts of undeveloped property. Among those issues which surfaced in the preparation of the LCPs were preservation of agricultural lands, protection of steep sloping hillsides and erosion control. The City found the policies of the certified Mello I and II segments regarding preservation of agriculture and steep sloping hillsides to be unacceptable. Following the certification of Mello I and 11, the City pursued negotiations with the Commission through a City Council-formed special committee comprised of Commission staff and City officials to resolve issues. In September of 1984 the Governor signed Assembly Bill 3744 (effect ive January 1, 1985) which eliminated provisions fo r an "agricultural subsidy program" in Carlsbad's coastal zone. In the summer of 1985, the City submitted two amendment requests to the Commission and, in Octob~r 1985, the Commission certified amendments 1-85 and 2-85 to the Mello I and II segments. These major amendments to the LCP involved changes to the agricultural preservation, steep slope and housing protection policies of the Mello I and II segments. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I and II LCP segments and began the process of preparing documents for "effective" certification of the entire LCP. Exhibit "20" April 18, 2018 The West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment was certified in 1985 along with a coastal development permit for a project comprising the majority of the uplands within that segment. The master plan {Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park) associated with this project served as the LCP implementing ordinances. The Village-Barrio segment resulted from the combination of the former Village Area segment and an adjacent portion of the Mello II segment. Furthermore, +!he plan area of the Village Area segment (previously titled "Village Area Redevelopment" segment) was itself formerly part of the Mello II segment. In August 1984, the Commission approved the segmentation of this 100 acre area from the remainder of the Mello II LCP segment and, at the same time, approved the submitted land use plan for the area . In March of 1988, the Commission approved the Implementation Program for the Village Area Redevelopment segment. The City assumed permit authority for this segment on December 14, 1988. In November 2009, the title of this segment was changed to the "Village Area" segment due to the imminent {July 2010) expiration of the Village Redevelopment Plan; however, the boundaries and policies affecting this segment are were unchanged. In {insert month. year}. the Commission approved the Village and Barrio Master Plan. expanded the boundaries of the former Village Area segment to include the adjacent Barrio neighborhood and changed its name to Village-Barrio segment. Since the Coastal Zone portion of the Barrio was in the Mello II segment. master plan approval included the transfer of this area from the Mello II segment to the Village-Barrio segment. Additionally, several small properties within the boundaries of the master plan were also transferred from the Mello II segment to the Village- Barrio segment. By so doing. all Coastal Zone portions of the master plan are part of the same segment. The Village and Barrio Master Plan serves as both the land use plan and implementation program for the Village-Barrio segment. The East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment is comprised of a portion of the original Mello I area and an area annexed {1985) to Ca rlsbad in and around Batiquitos Lagoon. An area of the segment known as Green Valley, south of the lagoon, the lagoon and the immediate north shore were previously part of the County of San Diego LCP (uncertified). All of this property, at the time of LCP preparation, was in one ownership {Hunt) and was the subject of the Pacific Rim master plan covering the lagoon and north shore uplands. The segment was certified by the Commission {land use and master plan as implementing ordinances) in March of 1988. Exhibit "20" April 18, 2018 II. Proposed changes to Chapter 1 (Introduction), "Exhibit -LCP Segment Boundaries" (The map below is the existing map and would be deleted from Chapter 1.) SEGMENT [lll MELLO I ~ MELLO 11 • VILLAGE ARE'\_ ii AGUA HEDIONOA LAGOON ~ WEST 8ATIOUITOS LAGOON ~ EAST BATIOUITOS LAGOON 111. Exhibit "2D" April 18, 2018 Proposed changes to Chapter 1 (Introduction), "Exhibit-LCP Segment Boundaries" (The map below is the proposed map and would be added to Chapter 1.) Segment Names: -Mello l [:;".=-.:=-] Mello II ~ ViUage-Barrio · :,~:.~~!,. Agua Hedionda Lagoon ~ West Batiquitos Lagoon/ Sammis Properties I : : : : ! East Batiquitos Lagoon/ Hunt Properties 0----===::::,IMl'!leS 8 -• Coastal Zone Boundary 0 Proposed Master Plan Boundary Existing LCP Land Use Designations: R-1.5. Residential 0-1.5 dulac R-4, Residential 0-4 dl.llac R-8, Residential 4-8 dl.llac R-15, Resideotial 8-15 du/ac • R-23, Resideotial 15-23 du/ac • R-30, Residential 23-30 dufac -V. Vilege • VC. Visilor Commercial O.Office LCPA 14-01 (Land Use) --Coastal Zone 8ou1dary 0 Proposed Master Plan Bo,ncta,y Proposed LCP Land Use Designations: V-B, Vilage-Barrio R-1.5, Resoential 0-1.5 du/ac R-4, Resioor,lial 0-4 du/ac R-8, Resu!enlial 4-8 dulac R-15. Residential 8-15 dulac • R-23. Resic:fenfial 15-23dulac • R-30, Resldeot.ial 23-30du/ac -VC, Vis~or Commercial 0, Office -P, P\Jblic • OS, Open Space • TC. Transportation Corridor Exhibit "LCPA 14-01" April 18, 2018 Village and Barrio Master Plan 0 LCP Segment Boundary - -• Coastal Zone Boundary Proposed Master Plan Area Inside Coastal Zone Fee! 6 1,000 W Path: J:IRequestsMarch2015\ComEconOev\P1anning\RlTM0011347 _ 18\Exhibit3_ VillageBarrioMPLCPsegments.mxd April 18, 2018 Village and Barrio Master Plan LCP Segment Changes ( City of Carlsbad PACIFIC OCEAN SITE MAP • N NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT 3 Village and Barrio Master Plan GPA 16-01 / ZCA 16-01 / ZC 16-01/ MP 14-01 / LCPA 14-01 / MCA 16-01 Existing Village Master Plan Village and Barrio Master 0 and Design Manual Land Plan Land Use Districts: Use Districts: 1 -Carlsbad Village Center 2 -Office Support 3 -Freeway Commercial Support 4 -Residential Support 5 -Hispanic Mixed Use Support 6 -Service Commercial Support 7 -Office Support 8 -Residential Support 9 -Tourism Support Barrio Center Barrio Perimeter -Freeway Commercial -Hospitality Pine-Tyler Mixed-Use • Village-Barrio Other -Village Center Village General 6 ---=====iFeet W O 800 Path: J:\RequestsMaich2015\ComEoonDev\Planning\RITM0011557 -18\Exhibit1_Village8arrioOistrictsComparison.mxd Atta Chm en t 4 ( Cicyof Carlsbad Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan Land Use Districts --Coastal Zone Bounday Existing General Plan Land Use Designations: ------R-1.5, Residential0-1.5 dufac R-4, Residential 0-4 du/ac R-8, Residential 4-8 dufac R-15, Residential 8-15 du/ac R-151O, Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office R-23, Residential 15-23 dulac R-30, Residential 23-30 du/ac v, v-a1age GC, General Commercial VC, Visitor Commercial VC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open Space O.Office -P. Public -OS, Open Space TC, Transportation Corridor ( City of Carlsbad 1 -Cart;bad Vill'IQe Center 2-0fficeSl.W(llt 3 -Freeway Commercial Support 4 -Resiclenlial Support 5 -Hispar,ic Mixed Use Support 6 -Se<Vice Commercial S""port 7 -Office Support 8 -Residential Support 9 -Tourism Support -• Coastal Zone Boundary Existing General Plan Land Use Designations: R-1.5, Residential 0-1.Sdu/ac R-4. Residential 0-4 du/ac R-8, Residential 4-8 du/ac R-15. Residential 8-15 du/ac R-15/0, Residenlial 8-15 dufac (Office R-23, Residential 1S-23du/ac R-30, ResidenUal 23-30 du/ac V, Village • GC, General Comme<cial • VC, Visrtor Commen:ial a VC/OS, Visitor Commercial/Open Space OS, Open Space BC • Barrio Center BP -Barrio P~er FC -Freeway Comme«:ial HOSP -Hospitality PT -Pine-Tyler Mixf<l-Use V80 -Vilage-Ba-rio DIiler VC -Vilage Center VG -ViOage General Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan Land Use Districts with Existing General Plan Land Use a ---===Fi!el ~ 0 1,000 Attachment 5 -• Coastal Zone Elo<ma,y Existing Zoning Districts: ----R-1, One Family Residential R-3, Muhi Famiy Residential RO-M. Residential Density -MUitipie R-P-0, Residential Prolessional 0, Office C-1 or C-2, General Ne19t"ilorhood Commercial C-T, Comme,cial Tourist NJ. Public Utifity V-R, Village Review P-C, Planned Cooimllli!y OS, Open Space -T-C, Transportation Conidor ( City of Carlsbad :.A C Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual Land Use Districts: -• Coastal Zone Boundary Existing Zoning Districts: .A C Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan • .,r,.,..,.,,"->' 1 -Cansbad ViRage Center 2 -Office Suppon 5 -Hispa,,ic Mixed Use Support 6 -Service Commefcial S~port 7 -Office Support 8 -Residential Support 9 -Tourism Support R-1, One Family Residen~al R-3, Multi Family Residential RD-M, Residential Density-Multiple R-P-0, Residential Professional Land Use Districts: BC -Barrio Center BP -Barrio Perimeter FC -Freeway Commercial HOSP -Hospitality PT -Pine-Tyler t,ixed>-1.Jse C-1 or C-2, General Neighbomood Commercial VBO -Village-Barrio Other VC -Village Center C-T, Comme,cial Tourist P-U, Public U55ty V-R, Vilage Review P-C, Planned Community OS, Open Space VG -Vilage General Existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual & Proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan Land Use Districts with Existing Zoning Attachment 6 VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT7 APRIL 18, 2018 PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE {ZCA 16-01) (Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added.) 1. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.010 (Names of zones) is amended to read as follows: In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the uses of land and buildings, to regulate and restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces about buildings, and to regulate the density of population, thirty-six classes of zones and overlay zones are established by this title to be known as follows: C-1-Neighborhood Commercial Zone C-2-General Commercial Zone C-F-Community Facilities Zone C-L-Loc-al Shopping Center Zone C-M-Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial Zone CR-A/OS-Cannon Road-Agricultural/Open Space Zone C-T-Commercial Tourist Zone E-A-Exclusive Agricultural Zone L-C-Limited Control Zone M-lndustrial Zone O-Office Zone O-S-Open Space Zone P-C-Planned Community Zone P-M-Planned Industrial Zone P-U-Public Utility Zone R-1-One-Family Residential Zone R-2-Two-Family Residential Zone R-3-Multiple-Family Residential Zone R-A-Residential Agricultural Zone R-E-Residential Estate Zone R-P-Residential~Professional Zone R-T-Residential Tourist Zone 1 R-W-Residential Waterway Zone RD-M-Residential Density-Multiple Zone RMHP-Residential Mobile Home Park T-C-Transportation Corridor Zone V R Village ReviewV-B-Village-Barrio Zone BAO-Beach Area Overlay Zone Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I LCP Segment C/V-SO-Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone F-P-Floodplain Overlay Zone H-O-Hospital Overlay Zone Q-Qualified Development Overlay Zone S-P-Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 2. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.020 (Degree of restrictiveness) is amended by revising subsection (4) as follows: (4). The ¥-PtV-8, P-U and P-C zones have special conditions for their application and shall be considered as more restrictive than other zones. 3. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.05.030, the zoning map, is amended as shown on Exhibit "ZCA/ZC 16-0!1' dated April 18, 2018, and attached hereto. 4. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 (V-R Vi llage Review Zone) is amended to read as follows: Chapter 21.35 V R VILLAGE REVIEW V-B VILLAGE-BARRIO ZONE Sections: 21.35.010 Intent and purpose. 21,3§,01§ Village rede-..•elepment plan eKpiration. 21.35.020 Incorporation of •1illage master plan and design manual Village and Barrio Master Plan by reference. 21.35.030 Land affected by this chapter. 2 ATTACHMENT7 APRIL 18, 2018 21.35.040 Village and Barrio Master Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code compliance. Permitted wses. 21,35.050 Pro¥isional wses. 21.35.0e0-050 General regulations. 21.35.060 Permitted uses. 21.35.070 'Jillage re¥ie>.\' permitPermit required. 21,35,080 Village re>.•iew pre,jeets, 21,35,085 Applieation anEI fees. 21.35,087 Notiees and hearings. 21,35,090 Deeision making awthority. 21,35,100 Annewracement ef decision and findings of fact. 21.35,110 Effeeti,,e Elate and appeals. 21,35.115 Expiration, extensions and amendments for ¥illage re¥iew permits. 21.357!1-20-080 Findings of fact. 21,35,130 Varianees. 21.35.140 Complianee with other pro>.•isiens of this eeEle. 21.35 .. !¼SQ090 Amendments to the t.•illage master plan anEI Elesign manwalVillage and Barrio Master Plan. 21.35.010 Intent and purpose. The village reviewvillage-barrio zone is intended to establish land use classifications.L aoo development standards.L a-FH:1-procedures and guidelines for that unique area of the city described in t he Carlsbad village master plan and design manual Village and Barrio Master Plan and designated "V-B, Village-Barrio" on according to the zoning map approved and on file in the housing and neighborhood services and city clerk offices. This zone adopts the land use classifications and development standards of the Carlsbad 11illage master plan and design manual as the 2:oning for the area designated. 21,35.015 Village rede>.•elepment plan expiration. Adopted on July 21, 1981, the Carlsbad village area redevelopment plans has served together with the village master plan and design manual to regulate land use and development in the village area for the purpose of eliminating blight and blighting influences, and to revitalize the area. \ft/ith expiration ofthe time limit for effectiveness ofthe Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan on July 21, 2009, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Project Area terminated and the Carlsbad redevelopment agency's authority to act pursuant to the redevelopment plan expired, with exception of the requirements to pay previously incurred indebtedness, to comply with Section 33333.8 of the Califo~nia~ealth and Safety Code (for provision of affordable housing) and to enforce mcisting covenants, contracts or other obligations and to manage agency owned property. Modifications to the Village master plan and design manual were adopted by the Carlsbad housing and rede>;elopment commission on June 23, 2009 and cit>,' 3 ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 council on June 23, 2009 and hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter. These modifications transfer land use and development authority within the village area from the Carlsbad housing and redevelopment commission to the City of Carlsbad. The city council has reaffirmed that the Carlsbad 1.«illage master plan and design manual together with implementing ordinances and policies shall continue to serve as the land use and development regulatory document for this unique village area to continue the rei.citalization effort. 21.35.020 Incorporation of •.iillage master plan and design manualthe Village and Barrio Master Plan by reference. Th e Village and Barrio Master Plan, Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan as adopted by Carlsbad cQty £council Ordinance CS-XXX on Ordinance No. 9591 on July 21, 1981XXXX, 2018, and as approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission on XXXX, XXXX, is and the village master plan and design manual as adopted by Carlsbad housing and redm,•elopment commission Resolution No. 271 on November 21, 1995, and modified by Carlsbad housing and redevelopment commission Resolutions No. 280 on August 13, 1996, No. 291 on December 16, 1997, and No. 379 on April 13, 2004, and modified by Carlsbad housing and redevelopment commission Resolution No. 446 on November 20, 2007, and modified by Carlsbad housing and redevelopment commission Resolution !')lo. 476 on August 18, 2009 are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into t his chapter. 21.35.030 Land affected by this chapter. This chapter sha ll apply only to lands located within the boundaries of the area known as the Carlsbad village area, the boundaries of which are described in the Carlsbad village master plan and design manual and according to map approved June 23, 2009 and on file in the housing and neighborhood services and city clerk officesVillage and Barrio Master Plan and zoned "V-B, Village-Barrio" on the zoning map. 21.35.040 Compliance with the Village and Barrio Master Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Projects developed pursuant to t his chapter shall be subject to the provisions of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, and all applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to those provisions of Titles 18, 19, 20 and 21. 21.~S.Q40 Permitted uses, Only those land uses specified in the Carlsbad village master plan and design manual as permitted uses for particular property in the village review area shall be permitted. 4 21.35.050 PF9\liSi9Aal YSeS, ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 Uses permitted as proi.1isional uses by the Carlsbad ¥illage area master plan and design n:ian1:.1al shall be permitted 1:.1pon issuance of a village review permit approved according to this chapter. 21.35.06~0 General regulations. Subject to the provisions of Section 21.35.130 and egxcept as otherwise provided by the Village and Barrio Master PlanCarlsbad village master plan and design manual, the regulations of this title which apply to uses generally or generally to all zoning classifications shall apply to property and uses in this zone . 21.35.060 Permitted uses. The development standards of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, including the permitted uses table, shall identify the permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses in the V-B zone. Any use not identified in the permitted uses table is not permitted unless the city planner determines that such use falls within the vision and intent of the Master Plan district in which it is proposed and is substantially similar to an allowed use in the district. Further, the city planner shall not find that a use substantially similar to an expressly prohibited use is permitted in any district. 21.35.070 '.tillage rei,.•iew permitPermit required. Unless specifically exempt from a discretionary permit pursuant to Section 21.35.080 of this chapterthe Village and Barrio Master Plan and Section 21.201.060, no building permit or other entit lement shall be issued for any development or use in the .\l-RV-B zone unless there is a valid village review permitsite development plan, conditional use permit, coastal development permit or other discretionary permit as required by the Village and Barrio Master Plan and approi.•edas approved for the property. 21.35,080 Village re•.iiew projects, (a) e)mn:ipt Projects. No village review permit shall be required for an exempt project. An exempt project is one which is exempt from the requirement to obtain a coastal dei.·elopment permit in accordance with Section 21.201.060; and requires no village review permit or other discretionary approvals, and includes but is not limited to: (1) Interior or exterior impro,.iements to mdsting structures which do not result in the intensity of use of a structure; and/or (2) Additions to existing structures which result in a cumulati>.ie increase of less than ten percent of the internal floor area; and/or 5 ATTACHMENT7 APRIL 18, 2018 (3) Changes in permitted land uses which do not require site changes, result in increased /\DT, result in increased parking requirements, or result in compatibility issues or problems; and/or (4) Landscaping on the lot unless it will result in erosion or damage to sensitive habitat; and/or (5) Repair or maintenance activities which are exempt from a coasta l development permit; and/or (6) /\cti~·ities of public utilities regulated by a government agency; and/or (7) /\ project that requires no variance of any type; and/or (8) Demolition of a structure outside the village segment of the Carlsbad Coastal Zone, provided that said demolition has no potential to create an adverse impact on coastal resources and/or access to the coast. (b) Nonexempt Projects. There are three types of village review permits required for nonexempt projects. One permit for each type of de1,elopment project described as follows: (1) Administrative Village Review Project. /\n administrative village revie1,tJ permit shall be required for projects that: 1) result in minor nev.i construction and/or a change in a development which requires no other discretionary approvals, except a minor variance within the authority of the city planner, and 2) include, but are not limited to: (A) Ne1.•.i construction of building(s) or addition(s) to the building footprint with an estimated permit value of less than sixty thousand dollars; and/or (8) Interior or exterior improvements to existing structures which result in an intensit•; of use; and/or (C) Provisional land uses, where a minor or major village review permit is not required; and/or (D) Changes in permitted land uses which result in site changes, increased ADT, increased parking requirements, or result in compatibility issues/problems; and/or (E) Signs for existing businesses or facilities; and/or (J;) Repair or maintenance acti¥ities which are not exempt projects; and/or (G) Demolition of a structure within the village segment ofthe Carlsbad Coastal Zone provided that said demolition has no potential to create an adverse impact on coastal resources and/or public access to the coast; and does not include any overnight accommodations. (2) Minor Village Review Pro:iect. A minor village review permit is required for projects that do not qualify as an administrative vi llage review project and/or in¥olve 6 ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 new construction 1Nith an estimated permit value of si><ty thousand dollars or more but less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars. (3) Major Village Reviev, Project. A major village review permit is required for projects that do not qualify as an administrative or minor village review project and/or involve new construction with an estimated permit value of one hundred fift1• thousand dollars or more. 21.~5,085 ApplieatioR aREI fees, A. An application for an administrative, minor or major village review permit may be made by the owner of the propert'; affected or the authorized agent of the owner. The application shall: 1. Be made in writing on a form provided by the city planner; 2. State fully the circumstances and conditions relied upon as grounds for the application; and 3. Be accompanied by adequate plans, a legal description ofthe property involved and all other materials as specified by the city planner. B. At the time of filing the application, the applicant shall pay the application fee contained in the most recent fee schedule adopted by the city council. C. If signatures of persons other than the owners of property making the application are required or offered in support of, or in opposition to, an application, they may be received as evidence of notice having been served upon them of the pending application, or as evidence of their opinion on the pending issue, but they shall in no case infringe upon the free exercise of the powers vested in the city as represented by the planning commission and the city council. 21.~5.087 Notices anEI hearings, A. No public notice or hearing shall be required for an application for an administrati',e village reviei.\' permit. 8. Notice of an application for a minor or major village revie•.v permit shall be given pursuant to the provisions of Sections21.54.060.A and 21.54.061 ofthis title. 21,~5.090 Decision Making authorit~·· /\. exemption Determination. 1. After the application has been accepted as complete, the city planner shall determine if the project is exempt from the requirements of this chapter pursuant to Section 21.35.080. No permit shall be required for a project which is exempt from the requirements of this chapter. The city planner shall: 7 ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 a. Determine the mmmption based on the certified local coastal program, including maps, categorical exclusions and other mwmptions, land use designations, zoning ordinances and the village master plan and design manual. In granting an exemption, the city planner mav impose such conditions as are necessaPt' to protect the public health, safety and welfare. b. Inform the applicant 1.vhether the project is exempt within ten calendar days of the determination that the application is complete. c. Maintain a record of all determinations made on projects exempt from the requirements of this chapter. The records shall include the applicant's name, an indication that the project is located in the village area, the location ofthe project, and a brief description of the project. The record shall also include the reason for exemption. B. Applications for administrative, minor and major village review permits shall be acted upon in accordance \\'ith the following: 1. Administrative Village Review Permits. a. An application for an administrative village revie•.v permit may be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the city planner based upon his/her review of the facts as set forth in the application, and of the circumstances ofthe particular case. b. The city planner mav approve or conditionally apprm,1e an administrative village review permit if all of the findings of fact in Section 21.35.120 of this chapter are found to exist. 2. Minor Village Revie11.• Permits. a. An application for a minor village review permit may be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the planning commission based upon its re•,•iew of the facts as set forth in the application, of the circumstances of the particular case, and evidence presented at the public hearing. b. The planning commission shall hear the matter, and may approve or conditionally approve the minor village review permit if all of the findings of fact in Section 21.35.120 of this title are found to exist. 3. Major Village Review Permits. a. An application for a major 1.,tillage review permit may be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the city council based upon its review of the facts as set forth in the application, of the circumstances of the particular case, and evidence presented at the public hearing. b. Before the city council decision, the planning commission shall hear and consider the app lication for a major village review permit and shall prepare a recommendation and findings for the city council. 8 ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 c. The city council shall hear the matter, and ma•r apprmte or conditionally appro•,e the major village revie\\' permit if all of the findings of fact in Section 21.35.120 of this title are found to exist. 21.35.100 Annoyneement of decision and findings of fact. When a decision on an administrati>.1e, minor or major village review permit is made pursuant to this chapter, the decision making authority shall announce its decision in writing in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 .54.120 of this title. 21,35.110 Effecti\1e date and appeals. A. City planner decisions shall become effecti1-1e unless appealed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21.54.140 of this code. B. Planning comR1ission decisions shall become effective unless appealed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21.54.150of this title. C. City council decisions are final, conclusive and shall be effective upon the date specifieEl in the announcement of decision. 21,35,115 l:Mpiration, eHtensions and amendments for •Jillage re1Jiew permits. A. The expiration period for an approved administrative, R1inor or major village review permit shall be as specified in Section21.58.030 of this title. B. The expiration period for an approved administrative R1inor or major village review permit may be extended pursuant to Section21.58.040 of this title. C. An approved administrative, minor or major village review permit may be amended pursuant to the provisions of Section21.54.125 of this title. 21.35.,.!-12:0-080 Findings of fact. No determination or decision shall be made pursuant to this chapter unless the decision- making authority finds, in addition to any other findings otherwise required for the project, that the project is consistent with the this code, the general plan, this code, as app licable, afl-d.-the village master plan and design manualVillage and Barrio Master Plan, and the Local Coastal Program, as applicable. 21,35,B0 Variances. An application for a 1-1ariance within the V R zone shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21.50 of this title. 9 21.~5.140 Compliance with other pro•1isions of this code, ATTACHMENT7 APRIL 18, 2018 Projects dei.•eloped pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of the village master plan and design manual and all other applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to those provisions of Titles 18, 19 and 20. 21.35T~-1-S0-090 Amendments to the \tillage master plan and design man~alVillage and Barrio Master Plan. Amendments to the •.iillage master plan and design manualVillage and Barrio Master Plan shall be deemed to be amendments to this chapter; provided, however, that such amendments are processed and noticed in a manner which meets the requirements of Chapter 21.52 of this code and are approved and adopted by city council ordinance. l\mendment ofthe village master plan and design manual by city council resolution, with a recommendation from the planning commissionL shall be deemed to satisfi,• the requirements of Chapter 21.52 of this code, provided all other requirements are met. 5. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.41.010 (Applicability) is amended by revising subsections 8 and C as follows: B. Properties and uses in the village-barrio (V-8) village review (VR) zone are regulated first by the sign standards of the Village and Barrio Master Plan and Design Manual, and then, to the extent not covered by said master plan, by the provisions of this chapter. C. Signs on city property, both within the V-8 •.«illage review zone and other zones, are controlled by other provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, not by this chapter. 6. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.41.090 {Coastal Zone sign standards) is amended by revising subsection A as follows: A. The following sign restrictions apply to properties in the coastal zone except the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Carlsbad Village Rei.1iewVillage-Barrio segments. If there is a conflict between the coastal zone sign standards of this section and any regulations of this chapter, the standards of this section shall prevail. Otherwise, within the coastal zone, the sign regulations of this chapter shall apply. 1. Each business or establishment shall be entitled to one fai;ade sign. 10 ATTACHMENT7 APRIL 18, 2018 2. Each shopping complex shall have only one directory sign which shall not exceed fifteen feet in height, including mounding. 3. Monument sign height including mounding shall not exceed eight feet and shall apply where three or fewer commercial establishments exist on a parcel. 4. Tall freestanding and roof signs shall not be allowed. 5. Off-premises signs shall not be allowed. 7. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.44.020 Table A (Number of off-street parking spaces required, 11financial institutions and professional offices"), is amended by eliminating the parking standard for office uses in the village review zone: Financial institutions Medical Office 1 space/200 square feet of gross floor area and professional Financial institutions 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area offices Other office uses 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area Office uses -ifl...t.A.e 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area village Feview 2ene and arnas within 300 feet of it5 the boundary of the village-barrio zone 11 ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 8. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.040 Table A (Permitted Residential Uses) and footnote 8 are amended as follows: Table A Permitted Residential Uses Legend: P = Permitted. (#) Number within parentheses= Permitted only in certain circumstances. X = Not permitted. Zone Residential Use One-Family Dwelling or Twin-Home on Condominium Project Small Lots (one unit per lot) R-1 (1)or(4) One-family dwellings -(3) or (4) Two-family dwellings -(1) or (4) Multiple-family dwellings -(4) R-2 p One-family or two-family dwellings -P Multiple-family dwellings -(2) or (4) R-3 p p RD-M p p R-W X p R-P (5) (6) RMHP p p P-C (7) (7) ¥-RV-B (8) (8) Accessory (9) (9) Uses Notes: (8) Refer to the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design ManualVillage and Barrio Master Plan for permitted uses. 12 ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 9. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.140 (Satellite television antenna- Generally) is amended by deleting subsection (k) as follows: (k) Redevelopment Zone. /\ redeYelopment permit issued pursuant to Chapter 21.35 shall be required for any satellite television antenna located in the village redevelopment zone. In addition to complying with the provisions of this section all satellite television antennae in the village redevelopment zone shall conform to the provisions of the i.•illage design manual. 10. That the last row in the use chart table in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.83.040 (Child Care) and footnote 4 are amended as follows: Small Family Day Large Family Day Care Home (8 or Care Home (14 or Child Day Care Zoning fewer children) fewer children) Center V-RV-8 P-C _, (4) LDCP (1)(4) (2)(3)(4) Notes: (4) Permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design ManualVillage and Barrio Master Plan or designated master plan). 13 ATTACHMENT 7 APRIL 18, 2018 11. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.84.040 Table A (Zones where housing for senior citizens is permitted)_and footnote 3 are amended as follows: Table A Zones Where Housing for Senior Citizens Is Permitted Zone Housing for Senior Citizens- R-3 MSDP/SDP1 R-P MSDP/SDP11 2 R-T MSDP/SDP1 R-W MSDP/SDP1 RD-M MSDP/SDP1 ~V-B See note 3, below P-C See note 3, below Note: Housing for senior citizens is prohibited in those zones not indicated. Notes: 3 May be permitted subject to the standards of the controlling document (i.e., in ~Y-.!? zone -Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan and Design Manual, and in P-C zone -applicable master plan) and the provisions of this chapter 12. That Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.201.080 C.1.a.iii (Minor coastal development permits and coastal development permits) is amended as follows: ___ iii. Projects that require an administrative village rcviev,1 permit a minor site development plan, minor conditional use permit, or minor variance, pursuant to Chapter 21.35 ofthis titlethe Village and Barrio Master Plan. 14 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider As Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Item Description Response # A. OVERALL 1. Tone, content, and formatting -As an overall effort, The revised draft master plan has been significantly staff will evaluate the plan's contents for redundancy, reorganized and streamlined from the April 2016 readability, ease of use, and tone. Ways the document draft. The background and introduction have been can be streamlined and perhaps shortened overall (e.g., condensed, with greater emphasis placed on deleting sections on the charrette, economics and concisely articulating the vision, goals and policies tactical urbanism and/or relocating them to the of the master plan. Key Recommendations have appendix) will be examined. Existing, adopted master or been retained but presented in a simpler format specific plans will be consulted to determine if a and supported in more detail elsewhere in the plan different format and wording style and means to (primarily Chapter 4, Mobility and Beautification). present information should be considered. Economic/demographic information, as well as a chronology of the planning process have been moved to the Appendices. Overall style and tone of the document is more direct, consistent with the city's other major planning documents. 2. Graphics -The April 2016 Master Plan draft has many Figures, photosand maps have been significantly renderings, pictures and maps. Consideration will be revised. Extraneously illustrations have been given to eliminate unnecessary graphics, partly to aid in eliminated, in favor of focusing revised and new the streamlining effort; for those proposed to remain, graphics on adding clarity to the concepts, modified or be added, staff will seek to make them standards and guidelines in the master plan. more appropriate to Carlsbad. Architectural illustrations have been revised to de-emphasize any particular style and instead convey specific site planning requirements or recommendations. Carlsbad-appropriate photos are incorporated into the master plan to illustrate ATTACHMENT 8 APRIL 18, 2018 Master Plan Reference Throughout document. Throughout document, especially in Chapters 2.-4. Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 2 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference acceptable sign types and desirable design features for new development. 3. Vision and objectives-Staff will review the Master The vision and objectives have been revised to Chapter 1 Plan's vision and objectives (Master Plan Part One and reflect feedback received throughout the planning Introduction, Section 4) in light of community comments and the process. They have been simplified into a vision, including Section 1.4, Carlsbad Community Vision and make revisions as goals and policies format centered around four The Vision; Section appropriate. Staff will also conduct an evaluation to major themes: 1.5, Goals and ensure Master Plan components that flow from the • Land use and community character Policies; and Section vision and objectives, such as development standards • Mobility and parking 1.7, Laws, Policies and (e.g., building height, setbacks) and design guidelines, • Connectivity Other Influences are consistent with them. • Placemaking These themes, introduced in Chapter 1, set the organizing foundation for the rest of the master plan. B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN AND CHARACTER 1. DeveloQment and use standards (Master Plan Part Two Development standards have been reorganized, Chapter 2 Land Use; -the "Code"~ -In particular, this section of the plan will revised and supported by simpler, clearer Chapter 3 Signs be targeted for streamlining and improved usability. illustrations. Similar to the previous draft, Graphics will be revised and standards will be reviewed development standards are separated into those for appropriateness. that apply throughout the plan area, and those that are district-specific. Refinements to development standards for the various districts have been made, including setbacks, height, roof protrusions, building coverage, site access, open space, and the like. Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16} Page 3 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference Sign standards were relocated to a separate chapter for ease of use. 2. Transect Districts-The adopted Village Master Plan The transects in the previous draft have been Section 2.2, District-and Design Manual divides the Village into nine land replaced with eight land use districts. The proposed based Approach; use districts. The draft Village and Barrio Master Plan land use districts more closely align with the district Figure 2-1, Village and uses seven Transect Districts instead (see Section 6.2) boundaries of the existing plan, with merging of Barrio Master Plan asa means to providestandardsfor both some districts (1, 2 and 4; and 5 and 6), and Area District Map neighborhoods. The Transect Districts can be creation of districts for the Barrio. The intent for confusing and their intent statements are not clear. each land use district is described, with use and Staff will examine the Transect Districts' effectiveness development standards tailored to each. and may recommend modifications or replacement bya different method of providing standards across the Adjustments to the master plan boundary were proposed Master Plan area. As part ofthis evaluation, also made, notably at the southern end where staff will also study refinements to the boundaries of properties with frontage along Tamarack Avenue, the Master Plan. Hibiscus Cir, Anchor Way, and Jefferson Elementary School were removed from the plan area. 3. Building height-Staff recommends eliminating the The previous draft master plan provided for base Section 2.6.2.C, Roof proposed height increase to 55-feet. Staff also will building heights to 45 feet {flat-roof) in the Village Protrusions; evaluate height limits and the maximum number of core and center transects, with a fixed allowance to Section 2.6.7, stories for each district. Further, considerthe 55 feet for mixed-use developments with pitched Standards appropriateness of allowing architectural projections, roofs, and discretionary allowance for architectural Modification; such as towers, to exceed the maximum building projections. Section 2.7, height. Supplemental District The proposed draft maintains the 45-foot base Standards building height in the districts, but imposes fourth floor area limits, roofline changes, and additional setbacks; and places more restrictions on allowable roof protrusions. In addition, where 45-feet is permitted, a four-story limitation is imposed. Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16} Page 4 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference All other districts of the proposed Master Plan limit heights to 35-feet. This is consistent with existing standards, except for the District 5 height limit in the existing Village Master Plan and Design Manual. The District 5 height limit is 30-feet; a five-foot increase is recommended as all height limits surrounding District 5 are either 35-feet or 45-feet. In the proposed Master Plan, District 5 is proposed as part of the PT District. As with the existingVill'age Master Plan, additional height is allowable with special findings through the standards modification process. 4. Community character -Most seem to agree that certain The draft master plan vision and objectives were Section 1.4, The elements in the Village and Barrio bear maintaining: the revised to better align with the Community Vision Vision; less dense Barrio core, the Twin Inns at the northeast and feedback received through the early charrette Section 1.5, Goals and corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive and subsequent review processes. Uses, Policies; (location of Sun Diego and the Land and Water development standards and design guidelines, as Section 2.6, Area-wide Company), State Street between Carlsbad Village Drive well as streetscape, connectivity, and beautification Standards; and Grand Avenue, and the very large trees along Grand recommendations were refined to match revised Section 2.7, Avenue. The overall walkability of the entire Master goals and policies. Supplemental District Plan area and small-town feel are other desirable Standards; attributes. Many of these qualities are captured in the Section 2.8, Area-wide core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision (e.g., Design Guidelines small town feel, community character and Chapter 4, Mobility connectedness). As noted, staff will review the Master and Beautification Plan's vision and objectives for consistency with the Community Vision and seek to develop guidelines and standards that follow suit. Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 {10/19/16) Page 5 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference 5. DesignGuidelinesLArchitecture-Staff will revisit The Design Guidelines section was shortened and Section 2.6, Area-wide Master Plan Part Three, Design Guidelines, asto re-written in simpler, more direct language. The Standards; structure, contents, and effectiveness. Examples, discussion on architectural styles was eliminated. Section 2. 7, text, and graphics will be more Carlsbad-Photographic examples of desirable design features Supplemental District appropriate and responsive to the desired character are more locally-relevant. Standards; of the Village and Barrio. An effort will be made to Section 2.8, Area-wide provide gu,idelines written and illustrated in "plain In order to have more "teeth", mandatory, Design Guidelines English.;' Staffwillalsostudyhowthe guidelinescan objective design elements have been identified and have more "teeth" sotheycaneffectively guide project moved to the Area-wide and Supplemental District designandassistthepublic, staff, and decision-Standards. Examples of mandatory, objective makers in project evaluation and recommendation. design standards include provisions for Staff does not recommend establishing any particular ingress/egress, building and entrance orientation, style or theme (such as a Spanish theme in the Barrio) wall plane and roofline variation, upper floor but does believe providing examples of community-setbacks, roof protrusions, window glazing, and the supported architecture in the Village and Barrio would like. be worthwhile. It seems appropriate for the design guidelines to provide some regulation of exterior materials. Guidelinesforbuildingmassshould be considered, such as setback requirements for upper buildingfloors. Further, because buildings are in close proximity to the street, pedestrians, and other buildings, quality of design is important to ensure the planning area remains interesting and inviting. C. STREETS, PARKING AND CIRCULATION 1. Parking -Parking provisions are found throughout the The Carlsbad Village, Barrio and Beach Area Parking Goal 1.5.2, Mobility Master Plan and particularly in the Vision and Code Study/Parking Management Plan (PMP) was and Parking; sections (Parts One and Two). Parking standards will be completed and accepted by the City Council in Section 2.6.6, Parking; revised pending the completion of the Village, Barrio September 2017. The PMP informed multiple and Beach Area Parking Study. It is expected the parking revisions to the way the proposed Village and Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 6 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference study recommendations could impact many Master Barrio Master Plan addresses parking needs. Section 4.3.4, Allow Plan provisions, particularly the strategies of the Revisions include adjustments. to parking ratios for on-street Parking in Mobility Plan {Section 2.7) and the parking ratios and new development (particularly compared to ratios Suitable Locations; parking in lieu fee standards {Section 6.4). in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual), Section 4.3.11, Street promoting continued use of the in-lieu fee program Design; within the Village (and east of the railroad tracks Section 4.5, only), emphasizing proactive parking management Implement Parking and shared/leased parking strategies to maximize and Transportation efficiency of parking .supply, and encouraging viable Demand Strategies; mobility options to manage parking demand. Table 5-1, Implementation Action Matrix (Parking Management, Transportation Demand Management) 2. Parking structure -Evaluate a parking structure in the The PMP evaluated future need for a public parking Section 4.5 Implement Village even if the parking study does not recommend structure and concluded that a single facility (or Parking and one. even two) would not effectively absorb unmet Transportation demand throughout the study area and would likely Demand Strategies be underutilized, and therefore not a cost-effective (see also PMP, pp. 59-solution. Based on the PMP findings, the revised 70) master plan does not propose a publicly-financed parking structure. 3. Street vacations -A policy on street vacations for the Staff determined a city-wide street vacation policy, Policy 1.5.4.A.8; Village and Barrio areas will be considered. as opposed to a policy developed just for the Section 4.3.1, Design Village and Barrio, would be best. However, the for Pedestrians First Master Plan provides policy and text recognizing the importance of preserving right of way through a Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 7 "' Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference policy recognizing the importance of maintaining and acquiring right of way as necessary to implement the Master Plan. 4. Alleys -Improved development and design standards Development standards, sign regulations, and Policies 1.5.2.A.1 & are recommended for alleys so that they too present a design guidelines have been revised to address the A.10; pleasant appearance in both the Barrio and Village function and appearance of alleys. Additionally, the Section 2.8.2.E, master plan recommends making alleys better-lit Connectivity; and more pedestrian-friendly, suggests Section 3.2.15, Wall incorporating public arts, and proposes to relocate Signs; a portion of the Coastal Rail Trail to State Street Section 4.3.6, Utilize Alley. and Make Alleys More Pedestrian-friendly; Section 4.3.7, Incorporate Arts and Culture into the Streetscape; Section 4.3.9, Provide Adequate Lighting; Table 5-1 Implementation Action Matrix 5. Alternative Design Streets -The appropriateness of The revised plan suggests removing the Section 4.3.11.G, maintaining this designation, which affects-some Village "Alternative Design Streets" designation of streets Beach Area Streets; streets, will be considered. west of Carlsbad Boulevard in order to improve the Table 5-1, pedestrian environment, better delineate and Implementation organize public on-street parking, and eliminate Action Matrix unauthorized private encroachments. The Implementation Action Matrix includes a program to design and implement curb lane management, Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 8 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference analyze and recommend changes to Alternative Design Streets designations. (NOTE: this project is currently funded in the city's CIP.) 6. Bike Plan-Many people commented on the desire for City staff collaborated with the San Diego County Goal 1.5.2, Mobility safer bicycling in the Village and Barrio, particularly in Bicycle Coalition to develop bikeway and Parking; Goal the form of bike paths separated from vehicle travel recommendations (including cycle tracks) for the 1.5.3, Connectivity; fanes. Staff will review the proposed master plan's master plan. Section 1.6.2, Key contents and recommend changes and may seek the Village advice of a bicycle interest group. Recommendations; Section 1.6.2, Key Barrio Recommendations; Section 4.3.11, Street Design; Section 4.4, Enhance the Bicycle Network; Table 5-1, lmplementation Action Matrix 7. Street lighting -Review the lighting plan, Master Plan The street lighting plan is carried forward into the Section 4.3.9, Provide Section 2.5.1.4, for adequacy and in consideration of revised draft master plan, and backed by several Adequate Lighting; capital improvement projects to improve pedestrian projects in the Implementation Action Plan: Table 5-1, lighting along Carlsbad Boulevard and in the Barrio and • Develop lighting design standards for the Implementation street lightlng throughout the Village and Barrio. Barrio (currently CIP-funded) Action Matrix • Develop lighting study and phasing plan to identify priority streets, crosswalks and alleyways in the Village and Barrio to install pedestrian decorative and safety lighting Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16} Page 9 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference • Complete pedestrian lighting on Carlsbad • Boulevard {currently CIP-funded) • Add pedestrian lighting on streets serving important facilities, such as the Carlsbad Village Train Station, and the Community Center and Senior Center at Pine Avenue Park 8. Traffic calming and gedestrian imgrovements -Numerous recommendations are made to improve Goal 1.5.31 Continue to evaluate roundabouts, traffic circles, bulb-pedestrian mobility, calm traffic and increase Connectivity; Goal outs, crosswalks, and sidewalk and accessibility safety. These include concepts for complete street 1.5.4, Placemaking; improvements as a way to improve circulation for all improvements along key streets, enhanced Section 1.6.2, Key forms of mobility in the VHlage and Barrio; accordingly, intersection and crosswalk design options, corner Village staff will review Master Plan Sections 2.5 and 2.6 (and bulb-outs, shared-space streets and intersections, Recommendations; Section 2.6.4, Barrio Streets, in particular) for and neighborhood traffic circles. Section 1.6.2, Key appropriateness. Barrio Recommendations; Section 4.3, Create Livable Streets; Table 5.1, Implementation Action Matrix 9. Entry monuments-Consider improvements to entry The Implementation Action Plan includes projects Policy 1.5.4.B.7; features that welcome people to the Village. to design, develop entryway enhancements at I-Section 4.2, Maximize 5/Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Boulevard at Connectivity; Figure 4-Tamarack Avenue, and transition improvements 1, Railroad and between the Village into the Barrio. Interstate Crossings; Section 4.3.11.C, Carlsbad Village Drive ( 1-5 to Carlsbad Boulevard); Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 {10/19/16} Page 10 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference Section 4.3.11.H, Barrio/Village Transition; Table 5.1, Implementation Action Matrix 10. Chestnut Avenue -A crossing of the railroad at Chestnut This recommendation is included in the revised Policy 1.5.3.A.5; Avenue should move forward regardless of trenching. draft master plan. Section 1.6.2.G, Key Barrio Recommendations; Figure 4-1 Railroad and Interstate Crossings; Table 5.1, Implementation Action Matrix D. LAND USE 1. Areas north of Grand Avenue-Staff will examine the The area that includes the Army and Navy Academy Section 2.2, District-appropriateness and adequacy of Master Plan complex is placed in the HOSP land use district, and based Approach; standards and objectives for the areas generally north the area generally east of Roosevelt Street and Table 2-1, Permitted of Grand Avenue, particularly in the vicinity of the north of Grand Avenue is in the VG land use district; Uses; Army and Navy Academy and along Roosevelt Street each district has area-specific use and development Section 2.7.2, Village eastward to Jefferson Street. standards. HOSP District standards recognize the General {VG) Army and Navy Academy Master Plan, which guides Supplemental District development on the school campus. The HOSP Standards; District proposes setback requirements for Section 2.7 .3, properties along Carlsbad Boulevard between Hospitality (HOSP) Beech Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive that are Supplemental District different than those applicable to properties Standards Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 {10/19/16) Page 11 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference elsewhere in the district; requirements differ to recognize the more intense development along the three block stretch of the boulevard as compared to the more open feel elsewhere. In addition, the VG District provides an opportunity to expand the mix of commercial and residential uses, particularly as compared to the current Village Master Plan and Design Manual. 2. State Street-Between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand State Street is placed in the Village Center {VC) land Section 1.6.1.C & K, Avenue, State Street is often cited as a wonderful use district. This district intends that buildings Key Village example of downtown Carlsbad. North of Grand generally be attached, built at or close to the Recommendations; Avenue, State Street is benefitting from private property line, and present a continuous commercial Section 2.2, District-investment but lacks the character that exists in the one street frontage. Ground floor uses, particularly based Approach; block south of Grand Avenue. Focused planning to within the Coastal Zone, will cater primarily to Table 2-1, Permitted guide street design, public space and land uses along visitors. Residential uses will be limited to upper Uses; this street is recommended. floors except north of Beech Avenue, where Section 2.7.1, Village residences may also occupy the ground floor. Center (VC) Supplemental District State Street between Carlsbad Village Drive and Standards; Grand Avenue is recommended to remain in its 4.3.11.E, State Street; existing configuration. For the sections north and Table 5-1, south, the master plan includes a design concept Implementation that would widen the sidewalks by 4.5 feet (to 12 Action Matrix feet) on each side with a corresponding reduction in travel lane width and marked with sharrows, while maintaining on-street parking, incorporating street trees and street furnishings. Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 12 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference Public gathering space and plazas are recommended on State Street at Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. Entry into the train station at Christiansen Avenue would be formalized and enhanced. 3. City hall-The Master Plan suggests a new city hall as a As of the publication of the revised draft master N/A potential future use of city-owned property at Carlsbad plan, evaluation and selection of a new civic center Village Drive and Roosevelt Street {Section 2.4.2). A site is on-going as one of the City Council's strategic current City Council strategic policy goal is to plan for a goals. Presently, four city-owned sites are being new city hall. One objective of the goal is to evaluate considered: the current City Hall location; the potential city hall locations. Completion of this parking lot at Pine Avenue Community Park; the evaluation is expected in summer 2017. The Master Faraday Administration Center; and the former Plan should be consistent with study results. Farmers Insurance building at El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue. The site identified in the previous draft master plan is not under consideration and has been removed from the revised draft. The revised master plan, therefore, makes no recommendation regarding the location of a new civic center. If warranted, future amendment to the master plan could be made once the new civic center location is determined. 4. Curb cafes-Curb cafes were approved as part of a three The revised master plan would allow continued use Section 2.6.5.A, Curb year pilot program according to City Council Policy 78. of existing curb cafes and expand the area where Cafes; The pilot program has expired and no new curb cafes new curb cafes could potentially locate. However, Section 2.6.6, Parking can be permitted unless the program is renewed. The curb cafe use would be contingent upon on-street April 2016 Master Plan draft contains broad policy occupancy rates remaining below 85 percent, as language that encourages the ongoing permitting of recommended in the PMP. Also, replacement Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 13 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference curb cafes and recommends expansion of the area in parking may be required in cases where a curb cafe which the policy allowed them. Now that the Village, is combined with a sidewalk cafe. Barrio and Beach Area parking study is underway, study results should influence any Master Plan provision in this matter. 5. Railroad trenching -With release of a comprehensive The Carlsbad Village Double Track Railroad Trench Policies 1.5.3.A.4 & study on railroad trenching this fall and subsequent Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study B.2; review, the Master Plan may need amendment as was completed and presented to the City council in Sections 1.6.1.G & M, appropriate. In addition, the Master Plan should early 2017. The study concluded that lowering the Key Village emphasize covering as much of the trench as possible. railroad tracks would be technically feasible, but Recommendations; expensive. The City Council has chosen to continue Policy 1.6.2.G, Key pursuing this strategic goal through the Barrio environmental study phase in order to compare its Recommendations; impacts to the street-level double-tracking Section 4.2, Maximize alternative previously analyzed by SANDAG. As Connectivity; such, the railroad trenching concept remains a key Table 5-1, goal of the revised draft master plan. Implementation Action Matrix (Railroad Corridor) 6. North Counw Transit District QroQertv-While trenching The revised draft master plan proposes use and Section 2.7.1.J, of the railroad tracks is an obvious factor, staff will look development standards for the railroad corridor. Supplemental District to better develop Master Plan standards for Nero-The master plan also recommends continuing to Standards -Railroad owned properties in cooperation with the agency. It is tease space from NCTD for public parking and Corridor; Section expected that the Village, Barrio and Beach Area explore possible expansion of public parking in the 2. 7 .8, Village-Barrio Parking study will also provide information on the railroad right-of-way (e.g., on the west side, south Other District; status and future use of parking lots the city presently of Oak Avenue) Section 4.5.2.D, leases from NCTD. Shared and Leased Parking; Attachment 8 Revisions to the Villiage and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 14 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference Table 5-1, Implementation Action Matrix (Railroad Corridor) 7. Implementation Plan -Staff will draft an The revised draft now contains a separate Chapter 5, implementation plan for public improvements that implementation chapter that identifies programs, Implementation; identifies, in general terms, time frames, feasibility studies and public improvements necessary and Table 5-1, and constraints, potential costs, and funding sources. desirable to carry out the vision for the plan area. Implementation Included in the implementation plan are brief Action Matrix; descriptions, general phasing (short, mid, and long-Appendix C, Funding range), and a partial listing of potential funding Sources sources. Implementation projects currently funded or programmed for future CIPfunding are identified. Cost information was not included in the implementation because: 1) in many cases, projects are not scoped sufficiently to mal<e meaningful cost estimates; 2) cost estimates would become obsolete over time unless kept up to date through periodic master plan amendments (which is impractical); and 3) it is more appropriate to develop cost estimates and establish funding priorities through the city's annual budgeting and CIP process. In lieu of reporting detailed cost and funding information in the master plan itself, the implementation chapter recommends a Phase 1 Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 15 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference action item to develop a financing strategy for the various Village and Barrio programs and capital projects identified in the master plan. 8. Open space -The Master Plan recommends several The Lincoln Street Plaza and Grand Avenue Goal 1.5.4, open space opportunities, such as the Lincoln Street Promenade remain as key recommendations, as Placemaking; Plaza and the Grand Avenue Promenade. The Village well as others that are intended to create open, Section 1.6, Key and Barrio also benefit from three existing public parks public spaces, i"'°cluding: Recommendations; and proximity to the beach, Staff will evaluate measures • Adding a 500 square-foot minimum plaza Section 2.6.5, Right-to incentivize developers to incorporate visible and --requirement on corner properties along of-Way Uses; attractive public spaces, particularly along a key Carlsbad Village Drive at Carlsbad Boulevard, Section 2.7, corridor such as Carlsbad Village Drive. State Street, and Harding Street; and at Supplemental District Grand Avenue and State Street; Standards (VC, HOSP, • Provisions for curb cafes and sidewalk cafes; VG districts); • Design guidelines to encourage attractive Sections 2.8.2.C & D, plaza and outdoor dining spaces; Plazas and Open • Permitting increased setbacks to allow for Space, Outdoor plazas, courtyards, and increased dining; seating; • New civic space at Grand Avenue and State Section 4.3.4, Street; Relocate Utility • A formalized plaza entry to the train station; Equipment; • An expanded Rotary Park with lowering of Section 4.3.7, train tracks; Incorporate Arts and • "Shared space" streets along Grand Avenue, Culture into the west of the Grand Avenue Promenade, at the Streetscape; Section intersection of Walnut Avenue and Roosevelt 4.3.10, Festival Street; and as a possible option for Tyler Streets/Shared Space Street; Streets; Section • Promoting public art throughout the plan 4.3.11, Street Design; area; Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 16 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference • Undergrounding of utilities and above-ground Table 5-1, utility equipment. Implementation Plan Action Matrix 9. Undergrounding utilities-A proposal to underground Included in the Implementation Plan is a Phase 1 Section 2.8.2.F, utilities can be constrained by available funding and Overhead utility undergrounding program study Mechanical other, already planned undergroundingprojects. Also, (this study is currently funded in the city's CIP), Equipment and undergrounding is commonly done in conjunction followed by a longer-term program to underground Service Areas; with a street improvement project. The feasibility and utilities in coordination with street improvement Section 4.3.3, Provide possibletimeframes for undergrounding in the and/or private development projects. a Consistent Street Village and Barrio are not known, but staff can Appearance; conduct some basic research in this regard; Section 4.3.5, potentially, undergroundingcould be a component of Relocate Utility the recommended implementation plan. Equipment; Table 5-1, Implementation Action Matrix 10. Preservation of a commercial "core" -Residences are Ground floor residential uses are proposed to be Table 2-1, Permitted permitted in all proposed Transect Districts (except the prohibited in the VC (south of Beech Avenue and Uses; Civic District, which is applied to the railroad corridor and excluding property north of the intersection of Grand Figure 2-2, Use city parks), though the Master Plan cautions their use in Avenue and Harding Street) and HOSP districts. Restrictions Map areas where they could break up retail continuity. Furthermore, the current Village Master Plan and Design Manual requires the primary permitted land uses for all ground floor space in the Coastal Zone to be visitor serving commercial uses. Staff will study whether in some areas it may be appropriate to restrict residential uses to upper floors only (in a mixed use format) where a strong commercial street scene or retail continuity is desirable and will confirm with the Coastal Commission Attachment 8 Revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan to Consider as Identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7207 (10/19/16) Page 17 Item Description Response Master Plan # Reference the extent of requirements for visitor serving commercial. 11. Mixed use projects -Buildings with a mix of uses would be Mixed residential/nonresidential uses are permitted Policies l.5.1.A.l, 2 & permitted by the Master Plan. This may include a in the VC, VG, HOSP, FC and PT districts, but some 4; combination of different commercial uses, such as retail uses, such as residences, are not permitted on the Table 2-1, Permitted on the first floor and offices above, or a mix of residential ground floor to preserve the Village's commercial Uses; and commercial uses. Staff will study what mix of uses is core. Permitted and conditionally-permitted Figure 2-2, Use acceptable, including whether time-shares should be nonresidential uses vary by district. Restrictions Map; allowed in a mixed use project. Table 2-3, Parking Time-share uses are conditionally-permitted in the VC Requirements; and FC districts, either as a stand-alone use or mixed Section 2.6.4, Good with other nonresidential or residential uses. Neighbor and Outdoor Dining standards; Area-wide requirements include "good neighbor" Section 2.7, I standards useful for buildings with a mix of residential Supplemental District and non-residential uses, including when such uses Standards are attached or on the same floor. 12. Grand Avenue Promenade -The master plan The Grand Avenue Promenade concept is featured in Policies 1.5.3.A.1 & 8.2; recommendation to convert a portion of this street into a the plan as a key recommendation. Section 1.6.1, Key public plaza should remain. Recommendations; Section 4.3.10, Festival Streets/Shared Space Streets; Section 4.3.11.A, Grand Avenue: The Grand Promenade; Table 5.1, Implementation Action Matrix Memorandum April 18, 2018 ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM #1 ATTACHMENT 9 { City of Carlsbad To: Planning Commission From: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner Via Don Neu, City Planner Re: Errata Sheet for Agenda Item #1-GPA 16-01/ZCA 16-01/ZC 16-01/MP 14- 01/LCPA 14-01/MCA 16-01 (DEV08014) -VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission include the following revisions to the Village and Barrio Master Plan (January 2018 Public Review Draft). Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted and underline indicates text to be added. Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS n/a n/a Under "Planning Commission," change "Velyn Anerson" to "Velyn Anderson." CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION 1-2 Section 1.3.1, Change overall Village and Barrio acreage from 325 to 350. Overall Description and Master Plan Boundary 1-3 Figure 1-1, Master Revise the Coastal Zone boundary as shown in attached Exhibit 1. This Plan Area, and affects multiple figures throughout the Master Plan. Revisions are the other figures result of the California Coastal Commission's ongoing work with local showing the Coastal jurisdictions to make minor adjustments that refine the boundary, Zone boundary originally established in 1977, in a manner consistent with California Coastal Act Section 30103(b). 1-5 Section 1.3.2, Change Village acreage from 210 to 215 acres. Village 1-6 Section 1.3.3, Change Barrio acreage from 120 to 135. Barrio 1-11 Policy 1.5.1.A.2 Change "Village core" to Village Center'' Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 2 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table 1-13 Section 1.5.1, Land Under Goal E.,. "Recognize and support the historical roots of the Village Use and and Barrio," add new Policy 3, to read as follows: Community "Comply with the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Character Resources Guidelines." 1-14 Section 1.5.2, Under Goal A, regarding supporting increased alternative modes of Mobility and transportation, revise the note applying to Policy 9 as follows: Parking (Note: this objective QQ.!.ky_complements Objective 4 .1.2 Policy 1.5.4.A.2). 1-15 Section 1.5.2, Under Goal B, Policy 81 change Goal cross-reference as follows: Mobility and ... (See also Goal b± 1.5.2.A) Parking 1-18 Section 1.5.3, Change section number from 1.5.3 to 1.5.4. Placemaking 1-19 Section 1.5.3, Change section number from 1.5.3 to 1.5.4. Placemaking CHAPTER 2 -LAND USE 2-5 Section 2.3, Land Remove standards regarding non-conforming lots, structures and uses Uses from Section 2.3.1, Allowable Land Uses, and place them under a new and separate section and heading as follows: 2.3.2 Non-conforming Lots1 Structures and Uses Non-conforming lots1 structures and uses within the Village and Barrio Master Plan area shall be subject to ar;rnlicable 12rovisions within Cha12ter 21.48 of the CMC. 2-5 Section 2.3, Land Remove standards regarding a development site that spans multiple Uses districts (last paragraph on page 2-5) from Section 2.3.1, Allowable Land Uses, and place them under a new and separate section and heading as follows: 2.3.3 DeveloQment Site S12anning Multi12le Districts A develo12ment site that s12ans multi12le districts shall be subject to a1212roval of a site develo12ment 12lan1 which shall establish the develo12ment standards for the site in a manner most consistent with the underlying districts' standards. Any use that is 12ermitted or conditionally-12ermitted over a 12ortion of such a site shall be Qermitted or conditionally-Qermitted anywhere on the site. 2-6 Table 2-1, Under the "Residential" category, revise "Mixed-use" as follows: Permitted Uses Mixed-use {see sectioR G.3.G for decisioR makiRg authorit}' subject to the uses 12ermitted in this table} 2-7 Table 2-1, Under the "Civic" category, add ''Mobility Hub" as a conditionally Permitted Uses permitted use in the VC, Village Center, District. 2-9 Figure 2-2, Use Revise Figure 2-2 as shown in attached Exhibit 2 to better identify the restrictions area in which certain uses are not permitted on the ground floor. Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 3 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table 2-20 Section 2.6.5 B.4, Revise the fourth standard regarding signs as follows: Sidewalk Cafes 1. No signs, including signs prohibited by CMC Section 21.41.030 21.Sl.030, or objects that would distract or impair motorists, shall be attached or displayed on any part of the sidewalk cafe. 2-22 Table 2-3, Parking Under the "residential" category, revise the parking standard for studio Requirements and one bedroom units as follows: Studio and one bedroom One space per unit. For condominiums, units the sgace must be covered. 2-23 Table 2-3, Parking Under the "lodging" category, remove "mixed-use" and its parking Requirements requirement and insert it under the "residential" category to follow "managed living unit." 2-24 Table 2-3, Parking Under the 1'other'' category: Requirements 1. Delete "cinema" and its parking requirement. 2. Indent "curb cafe or sidewalk cafe" and "outdoor display" so it is clearer that these uses fall under the "right of way uses" head ing. 2-27, Table 2-4, Parking Add the subheading "available to non-residential uses" at the top of the 2-28 Options table on each page as provided on page 2-26. 2-37 Section 2.7.1 A., Amend 2. 7 .1 A.1. as follows: Setbacks A. Setbacks 1. Front/Corner: Minimum of O feet; maximum of 5 feet to building {at the ground floor). Additional depth permitted where area includes a plaza, courtyard, or outdoor dining. 2-37 Section 2.7.1 E., Amend 2.7.1 E.1. a. as follows: Open Space 1. Public Space a. 500 square foot minimum plaza {exclusive of right of way) with street furnishing, landscaping, accent trees, and lighting shall be provided at each corner located at the following intersections: Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive and State Street, State Street and Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. No vehicle access aisles or parking is permitted in this area. This area shall also remain unobstructed to the sky exceQt for limited grotrusions that contribute to building architecture or street vibrancy, such as awnings, architectural features, UQQer floor balconies, and other non- Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 4 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table habitable s12ace. Not more than 50 sguare feet of such 12rotrusions shall 12roject over the reguired plaza area. 2-39 Section 2.7.1 G., Amend 2.7.1 G. as follows: Building Height G. BUILDING HEIGHT 1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories 2. Ground floor plate height: 14 "feet. This height shall be measured from the finished floor to the toi:1 plate of the ground floor or, where there is no "12late", to the bottom of the floor structure of the second floor. 3. If a 4-story building is proposed: a. A maximum of 30 percent of the fourth story street facing fa~ade can have a 0 foot setback (as measured from woperty line). The remaining 70 percent shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet (as measured from property line). b. The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third floor footprint. 2-42 Section 2. 7 .1 J., Amend 2.7.1 J.1 as follows: Railroad Corridor The primary use of the railroad corridor shall be for transportation facilities and improvements that provide rail and transit seNices and support facilities, as determined by NCTD. Accordingly, land uses in the railroad corridor in each transect district are subject to CMC Chapter 21.100, Transportation Corridor. 2-49 Section 2.7.3 A., A. Setbacks Setbacks 1. Parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive: a. Front: Minimum of 0 feet; maximum of 5 feet to building (at the ground floor). Additional depth permitted where one or more of the following are provided: Plaza, courtyard, outdoor dining, enhanced pedestrian connection, or landscaping. b. Side: 0 feet c. Rear: 0 feet 2-50 Section 2.7.3 E Amend 2.7.3 E.2.a. as follows: 2. Public Space a. 500 square foot minimum plaza (exclusive of right of way) with street furnishing, landscaping, accent trees, and Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 5 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table lighting shall be provided at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. No vehicle access aisles or 12arking is Qermitted in this area. This area shall also remain unobstructed to the skv except for limited Qrotrusions that contribute to building architecture or street vibrancy, such as awnings, architectural features, u1:112er floor balconies, and other non-habitable SQace. Not more than 50 sguare feet of such 12rotrusions shalt project over the reguired Qlaza area. 2-52 Se(tion 2.7.3 G., Amend 2.7.3 G. as follows: Building Height G. BUILDING HEIGHT 1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories I 2. Ground floor plate height for buildings fronting Carlsbad Boulevard: 14 feet. This height shalt be measured from the finished floor to the tOQ plate of the ground floor or, where there is no "12late", to the bottom of the floor structure of the second floor. 3. If a 4-story building is proposed: a. Parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive: A maximum of 30 percent of the fourth story street facing fa~ade can have a O foot setback {as measured from property line). The remaining 70 percent shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet (as measured from 12roQerty line). b. All other Qarcels: A maximum of 30 Qercent of the fourth sto[Y street facing fa~ade can have a minimum 10 foot setback (as measured from QroQertv line}. The remaining 70 gercent shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet {as measured from QroQerty line}. f,___The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth floor space shalt not exceed 80 percent of the third floor footprint. 2-57 Section 2.7.4 G., Amend 2.7.4 G. as follows: Building Height G. BUILDING HEIGHT 1. Maximum 45 feet and 4 stories 2. If a 4-story building is proposed: a. A maximum of 30 percent of the fourth story street facing fa~ade can2 have a minimum G 10 foot setback {as measured from grogerty line}. The remaining 70 Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 6 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table percent shall be set back a minimum of -W15 feet (as measured from 12ro12erty line). b. The total square footage of enclosed occupiable fourth floor space shall not exceed 80 percent of the third floor footprint. 2-61 Section 2.7.5 G., Amend 2.7.5 G.2 as follows: Building Height G. Building Height 2 .. Minimum ground floor plate height for commercial and ground floor mixed-use: 12 feet. This height shall be measured from the finished floor to the to12 12late of the ground floor or1 where there is no "12late" 1 to the bottom of the floor structure of the second floor. 2-61 Section 2.7.5, Amend this graphic to show a 12 ~, instead of 14 ft., minimum Minimum Ground dimension. Floor Plate Height graphic 2-63 Section 2.7.6 E., Amend 2.7.6 E.1.b. as follows: Open Space E. Open Space 1. Property Open Space b. Open space may be public or private and may be dedicated to landscape planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens/patios, balconies, or other patios, aRElfaF a1:1tElaaF eatiAg aFeas. 2-67 Section 2.7.7 E., Amend Section 2.7.7 E.3.a.ii. as follows: Open Space E. Open Space 3. Multiple family dwellings: a. Property Open Space ii. Open space may be public or private and may be dedicated to landscape planters, open space pockets and/or connections, roof gardens/patios, balconies, or other patios, aAelfeF e1:1teaeF eatiAg aFeas. 2-71 Section 2.8.1, Intent Revise the section reference in the last line of the second paragraph from Section 5.3.1 to Section 6.3.2. CHAPTER 4-MOBILITY AND BEAUTIFICATION 4-2 Section 4.2, Revise the last paragraph on page 4-2 as follows: Maximize Two initiatives are at play that can dramatically change the division Connectivity of the community in the future. The first is the plan by NCTD and SANDAG to double-track the rail line; the second is the opportunity to enhance street connections between the study area and the eastern neighborhoods and provide attractive entry features, Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 7 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table "gateways/' as a result of the proposed 1-5 enhancements planned as 12art of freeway widening (North Coast Corridor Project). 4-5 Section 4.2, Amend the last paragraph on page 4-5 as follows: Maximize Given its prominence and activity level, Grand Avenue could be Connectivity connected under 1-5 as part of the overall North Coast Corridor ff)roject to create an important connection for residents east of the interstate. It would also provide at a minimum bike, pedestrian, emergency vehicle, and transit/parking shuttle access from the east side of the interstate to the beach, Village and Barrio. Consideration of this underpass should occur as part of discussions on a potential city hall expansion or connectivity impacts to the Village and Barrio resulting from1 for exam12le1 future im12rovements to the freeway and the 1-SLSR 78 interchange. 4-14 Section 4.3.8, Add a fifth recommendation on page 4-14 as follows: Provide Shade 5. Near railroad crossings, street tree placement must be carefully considered to ensure trees do not reduce visibility of warning devices or approaching trains. 4-18 Section 4.3.10, Amend the last paragraph on page 4-18 as follows: Festival An advantage of this street type is its flexibility; if it is desired to Streets/Sha red temporarily close the street for a festival or an evening event, the Space Streets resultant space is devoid of curbs and trip hazards and can be given over 100% to people. During community engagement, this concept was discussed as a possibility for Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and the railroad tracks. Maintaining the curbs and raised medians near the raflroad crossing on Grand Avenue1 however, would be necessarv to provide channelization to discourage motorists from circumventing gate arms at the crossing. 4-30 Section 4.3.11 C., Revise the text on page 4-30 to clarify the median would remain as Carlsbad Village follows.: Drive (Interstate 5 Proposed conditions would improve pedestrian facilities by to Carlsbad extending the curb toward the centerline by approximately five Boulevard)-Street feet and six inches to create a total sidewalk width of fourteen feet Cross Section 3 and six inches on both sides, allowing for enhanced pedestrian mobility, landscaping, and amenities such as street furniture. Bicycle lanes would be replaced with sharrow markings to facilitate the pedestrian enhancements. Right-of-way width, vehicle lanes and the turn lane and median would remain the same. However, removal of bicycle lanes should not take place until adequate replacement bicycle facilities are provided on Oak Avenue, the Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 8 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table street parallel to and south of Carlsbad Village Drive. Such adequate facilities are proposed on Oak Avenue. 4-56 Figure 4-32, Bicycle Revise the map to show an existlng Class Ill Bike Route on Laguna Drive Facilities between Jefferson and State streets. 4-63 Section 4.5.2, To the bulleted list on page 4-63, revise the last item as follows: Managing Parking and Increasing • Support the vision outlined ln_eHhe Master Plan Mobility 4-64 Section 4.5.2, To the bulleted list, add an additional it-em at the list's end as follows: Managing Parking • Transportation Demand Management and Increasing Mobility 4-72 Section 4.5.2 E, In-At the second bullet point, amend the first sentence to read as follows: Lieu Fees Allow funds to pay for parking program improvements -Amend the policies related to the in-lieu fee program to allow the collected funds to support shared public parking and leased public parking that the city will broker. CHAPTER 6-ADMINISTRATION 6-1 Section 6.2.1, Local Amend the paragraph as follows: Coastal Program For properties within the Coastal Zone (shown in Figure 2-1), the goals and policies in Chapter 1, the use and development standards in Chapters 2 and 3, aAG the administrative processes of Chapter 6, and the definitions in Appendix A of this Master Plan, together with CMC Chapters 15.12 -Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, and 15.16-Grading and Erosion Control, as well as those provisions of the Zoning Ordinance not superseded herein, shall constitute t he Local Coastal Program for the Village and Barrio. 6-2 Section 6.3, Permit Amend the first bulleted item as follows: Requirements 1. The vision and objectives for the Village and Barrio as a whole as described in Chapter 1-Introduction and Vision; and 6-3 Section 6.3.2, Amend 6.3.2 A. and 6.3.2 A.1 as follows: Exempt Projects A. The following improvements and activities are exempt from a discretionary permit except as provided in Section §S.3.2.C. below: 1. One single-family detached dwelling (however, compliance with Section 2.8.3, Residential Design Guidelines, 4e5igfl gl:lielelines shall be required; additionally, a mlnor coastal Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 9 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table development permit shall be required if located in the Coastal Zone); 6-4 Section 6.3.3, Correct paragraph numbering and a section subheading as follows: to Permit Types A. Minor Site Development Plan 6-5 A:-1. The following improvements require--. [renumber 1-8 to a-h] &-: 2. All minor site development plans ... B. Site Development Plan A:-1, The following improvements require ... [renumber 1-2 to a-b] &-: 2. All site development plans ... C. Minor Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit [renumber A-D to 1-4] 0. Coastal Development Permit A:-.L Unless exempt, and except as provided in paragraphs B aAel G eftl=f is sectieA Section 6.3.2 B., all development within the Coastal Zone of the Village and Barrio Master Plan shall be subject to issuance of a minor coastal development permit or coastal development permit in accordance with the provisions of CMC Chapter 21.201. &-: L In addition to the decision-making authority ... [renumber 1-2 to a-b] 6-6 Section 6.5, Amend the first sentence to rea d as follows: Amendments Amendments to the Village and Barrio Master Plan shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of CMC Chapter~ 21.35 and 21.52. APPENDIX A-DEFINITIONS A-2 Dwellings Under the Dwelling category, delete the definitions of "Managed Living Units" and "Mixed-Use;" relocate the definition of ''Live/Work Unit" to be after the definition of '1Ught Industrial." A-3 Mixed-Use Dwelling Amend the definition as follows: Mixed-Use DwelliRg: A building or portion thereof, designed for occupancy by one or more families living independently of each other, and containing one or more dwelling units in addition to non-residential spc1ce (typically office, retail or other commercial space). The non-residential space is typically located on the ground floor. APPENDIX C -FUNDING SOURCES C-4 C.1.1, National Insert between third paragraph and "Environmental Justice" Programs: Federal subheading, a new subheading and introductory paragraph, as follows: Government D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc~ [EPAl Errata sheet for Agenda item #1 April 18, 2018 Page 10 Page Section, Figure or Recommended change # Table EPA's mission is to Qrotect human health and the environment. Where and how we build communities has a major imQact on the environment and on Qublic health. Many EPA Qrograms are aimed at helQing tribal, state, and local governments SUQQOrt activities that build more sustainable communities and Qrotect human health and the environment. C-11 C.2.7, California Delete second paragraph (beginning at "Governor's Homeless Department of Initiative'') and third paragraph (begihning at "HOME Investment Housing and Partnership Program"), and replace with the following: Community Atf.ordable Housing__ and Sustainable Communities (AHSCl Development (HCD) Prog_ram: AHSC e.rovides g_rants and affordable housing loans for infill, transit-oriented develoQment, infrastructure activities. Projects will demonstrate how the:t suggort reduction of greenhouse gas emissions bt increasing accessibilit:t of housing, emQIOl'.'.ment centers and key destinations via low-carbon transQortation OQtions resulting in fewer vehicle miles travelled. Sue.e.ortive Housing_ Multi[amil"t. Housing_ Program (SHMHPl: SHMHP funds may be used for new construction, rehabilitation, acguisition and rehabilitation, or conversion of nonresidential structures. Priority QOints are given to Qrojects using sustainable building methods sgecified in state regulations. SHMHP funds are for germ anent financing only. Eligible costs include facilities for child care, after-school care, and social service facilities integrally linked to the restricted housing units. Develogment costs mal'.'. include real 12roi:1erty acguisition, refinancing to retain affordable rents, necessarv on-site and off-site imgrovements, reasonable fees and consulting costs, and cagitalized reserves. Veterans Housing_ and Homelessness Prevention Prog_ram (VHHPl: VHHP makes long-term loans for develogment or greservation of rental housing for vety low-and low-income veterans and their families. Funds are made available to sgonsors who are for-grofit or nonQrofit cor12orations and QUblic agencies. Availabilitl'.'. of funds is announced annually through a Notice of Funding Availability. APPENDIX D -CHRONOLOGY D-1 n/a Delete "D.1" from the heading -+-+-Railroad - - -Coastal Zone Boundary --Previous Coastal Zone Boundary 0 Village and Barrio Master Plan Area Village • Barrio ---c:=:===iFeel 0 0 1,000 ~ Path: J:\RequestsMarch2015\ComEcooOev\PlanninglRJTM0011347 _ 18\ExhibitO _ CZBndyComp.mxd ( City of ,. Carlsbad Coastal Zone Boundary Comparisons " DISTRICTS • Village Center (VC) D Village General (VG) D Hospitality (HOSP) • Freeway Commercial (FC) D Pine-Tyler Mixed-use (PT) D Barrio Perimeter (BP) Barrio Center (BC) D Village-Barrio Other (VBO) f .:J Village and Barrio Master Plan Area _,_,. Coastal Zone Boundary MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 ,.,.,.. Boundary of area in which certain uses t""2 are not permitted on the ground floor. Boundary of area in which automobile -r-1 service and light industrial uses are ( '---conditionally permitted. 250 500 -1,000 1Feet Errata Exhibit 2 2-9 ATTACHMENT 10 -PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Cc:· Subject: Connolly, Patrick <pconnolly@rniracosta.edu> Saturday, January 20, 2018 7:03 AM Scott Donnell Paul Nixon; Tom Toone; Connolly, Patrick Couple Questions Scott, great job getting to this point. Almost there! Couple questions about the draft; some of them related to current issues that Village by the Sea (VBS) and our residents are encountering. 1. re: page 1-14#6 -do you have any specifics about this process? Is there a current way for residents to be a regular and permanent part of this discussion? 6. Work with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG}, North County Transit District (NCTD}, and other public and private partners and seek public input to develop a mobility hub at or near the Carlsbad Village Station. 2. page 1-14 #10 and 1-18 #8 -both talk about mobility and there are other references to "connectivity" in other places. Question -if Village by the Sea_decided to fence in its entire perimeter (with appropriate "fences" and gates), is there anything in the draft plan that would make it more difficult to accomplish this? 10. Explore improvements to alleys to enhance their use and improve overall mobifity. 8. Recognize streets, alleys and other public rights of way as valuable assets for public access, mobility, space; beauty, and utility; accordingly, maintain and acquire right of way as necessary to implement the Master Plan. 3. (pl-24 ... ) Laws, Policies, and other Policies (generally) F. City Ordinances (specifically) -We have found that the City's Enforcement Department has been restrained in enforcing ~hat would otherwise be unauthorized activity in the Village because of tolling agreements that appear to have been secretly entered into by the Office of Law, the Planning Department, and the applicant. While we could debate whether they were "secret", they clearly were executed ex parts and without the input ·of the residents most affected and probably would not have been disclosed without a formal CA Public Records request. Is there anything in this new plan which would require some resident input when such an agreement is being considered? 4. We have also found that once a facility/use has been permitted or found not to require a permit (which, of course, means no notice to residents), there is little or no followup by the Planning Department to ensure that the facility/use ls being conducted in the manner contemplated. It is then up to residents to bring non-compliance to the city's Enforcement attention. Our experience is that changing the status quo (albert out of conformance) is extremely difficult. Question -is there anything in the draft that would require: a. Some type of publication/notice to affected residents even when no permit is required? b. Some requirement that the Panning Department follow-up or that decisions of no permit required for pre-review applicants also require at least a follow-up certification by the applicant that the facility/use is in conformity with the facility/use identified in the pre-review application? 5. p. 1-27 Who are the North County Advocates and where can that agreement be accessed? 6. p 2-7. does "Athletic and Health Club, Gymnasium, and Physical Conditioning Business" include tennis or pickle ball courts generally and specifically in HOSP District? 1 7. Where do massage parlors fit in Table 2-1? Medical Offices? 8. p 2-13 Does a "clear zone" also require that parking not be permitted In the isosceles triangle? 9. Chapter 2-6.6 Parking requirements are clear but our experience is that the city does not enforce. Will that change with adoption of the draft? 10. p. 2-42 2.7.1 (J 4) if trenching is not approved/funded, does the city have a back-up plan re: train noise reduction? 11. There is no discussion of homelessness or allocation of police resources/substations to the Village/Barrio area. I know there is a "substation" of sorts on Harding but shouldn't the draft also consider additional police presence at the Transportation Hub?? (e.g. mobile command posts) Shouldn't the draft incorporate a plan to address the homelessness/addiction/mental illness issues that effect the Village/Barrio? Thanks, Pat Connolly 2 From: To: Subject: Date: Hi Scott, mlchael ajdour Scott Donnell barrio central homeowner/resident comments on 3rd Draft of v/b plan Monday, January 29, 2018 7:21:16 PM Thank you once again for all your work. I'm sticking with the barrio --no doubt you are getting plenty of scrutiny re: the village. Good things 1. Heritage trees (1-13 with one qualifier about a dangerous tree) 1. Ped/bike crossing at Chestnut & RR. (1-17, 1-22,4-5.4-48) no matter which way treaching goes 2. Quantifying open space in Barrio Perimeter (2-63) 3. Use pervious parking materials (2-72) (although I had to explain that word to a concerned neighbor!) 4. "Discourage & avoid 'chain' corporate architecture and generic designs" (2-79) 5. ALL of 2-78 to 2-85 --thank you for architectural guidelines! ! Well done. 6. Proposed cycle lanes on Harding (4-46) looks like prototype to try elsewhere in town as well -safer for cyclers. Very nice ! 7. Barrio lighting -but not the details about how it will be implemented. 8. Encouraging trellises and the details about plants Bad things 1.Don't call the huge tree behind 3557 Madison a heritage tree because it had a twin that fell dbwn in a winter storm a few yrs ago and barely missed smashing houses . We have photos. Both trees were found by 2 boys out "garbage picking" which is hardly a noble heritage. Many other splendid trees -that one ls a danger. 2. Prohibiting chain link and "other similar fences" throughout the barrio. At first I liked this because to be both honest and selfish, I hate my neighbor's barbwire fence and his bougenvillia upon it. But then I noticed while walking how much chainllnk there fs here -including Chase Field, Pine Park, preschools, and a huge percentage of private homes. If people are made to remove, that is really overstepping. Plus it functions nicely as both a trellis (even for the damn bougenvillia) and a place to lock all those bikes you expect us to ride everyplace.(2-13) 3. Creep on height limits (2-15) Esp. decks. Esp stairs up to 10 ft above maximum hefght. Stairways to what ?? Heaven? 4. Don't run the Montessori schools off with excessive parking requirements. They are good neighbors and their hours mesh with when residents leave. (2-24) Also concerned about parking requirements for private homes? 4 car garages for pre-existing R-2's? Yikes! 5.Rooftops as"private open space" in barrio central? (2-68) NO, that's the opposite. 6. Barrio lighting -yes please, but don't supplement it with additional studies and filigrees and arguing over what style finials ! (4-15 ,4-16) We'll be in the dark forever with that going on . (I used to work in a lighting store and I still have nightmares about women endlessly changing their minds about finials ... ) 7. No monuments in the middle of the street. The murals at Walnut and Roosevelt are lovely and suffice as monuments. (4-19) 8. No sharrows on Jefferson. Sharrows are the worst of both worlds. The 101 in Leucadia is an example of how they make both bikes and cars uneasy. 9. Barrio residents still do not want distilleries here. ? Hope to hear more about 1'shared space" and what that means beyond no curbs adding flexibility for special occasions. Wondering about this Special Assessment District business at the end -if there are assessments for "roads.sewer, and water'' and the city is closing roads to cars (parts of Chestnut ,Harding, Tyler?, intersection with monument) in the barrio, the talk should be about giving us $ back for the roads taken from us, not assessing us for more $ for decent basic lighting . Finally, I cannot help but think how difficult is must be to work through this whole thing yet again, respect community input (yet again) and have to put 2-30 in there. Why even bother to write standards if we are going to modify them when the exceptions are so ... unexceptional. It must be frustrating but you've done a good job (esp. the addition of architechtural standards!!) and I thank you. Sincerely, Julie Ajdour barrio homeowner,resident, landlord, and parent Scott Donnell From: Council Internet Email Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 3:05 PM Subject: Attachments: FW: Village/Barrio Master Plan(Proposed) img001Jpg City Council Members, The email below was sent to Celia Brewer and the Council was copied on it. Andi From: simon angel [mailto:srangel69@outlook.com] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 12:00 PM To: Attorney <attorney@CarlsbadCA.gov> Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Village/Barrio Master Plan(Proposed) Hi Celia. I would like to request a meeting regarding the latest proposed Village/Barrio Plan. I have a concern regarding the conditional permitting of breweries, wineries and distilleries in the Barrio District designated as PT(Pine- Tyler Mixed Use). This is just a new designation for District 6 under last years application which was essentially rejected by the 2-2 vote with Mayor Hall recusing himself. I find this disturbing because it gives every appearance that this is an attempt to circumvent last years action despite follow up e-mails with Scott Donnell(attachment). Restrictions that I proposed for incorporation into the proposed plan were watered down in order to allow these uses under the revised plan. 1 RE: Revision to Village /Barrio Master Plan Scott Donnell <ScottDonnel1@carlsbadca .. gov> Wed 8/2/2017 5:21 PM To.simon anget <srangel69@outlook.com>; Hi Mr. Angel, The April 2016 draft of the master plan does group breweri'es/distilleries/wineries together and requires a cohditional use permit if any of them are proposed in certain dlstricts of that draft plan, including the district that encompasses parts of Tyler and Roosevelt streets. Based on the recent City Council denial of the request to allow distilleries in land Use District 6 of the current, adopted Village Master Plan and Design Manual, we'll probably recommend in the next draft of the master plan that distilleries not be permitted in the Tyler Street area. We'll also consider in light of Council's action whether it continues to be appropriate to recommend that wineries and breweries be conditionaJly permitted in the Tyler Street area as the April 2016 draft proposes. At this point, however, I don't know what our recommendation will be. Thank you for your tlioughts on this and the separation requirement recommendations, which I think would help avojd an overconcentratlon of these uses and help ensure they are sensitivety locate .. Scott Donnell Senior Planner 1635_Farada~ Avenue Carlsbad, CA __ 92008~ 7314 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-602-4618 I 760-602-8560 fax I scott.donneil@carlsbadca.gov From: simon angel [mailto:srange!69@outlook.com] Sent:-Monday, Jufy 31, 2.017 12:32 PM To: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Revision to Village /Barrio Master Plan Mr. Donoell, this e-mail is to request a proposed revision to the Village/Barrio Master Plan. This request and proposal addresses the following 6.32, 3. Brewery/Wmery, c;l of the draft. I propose adding distilleries to this section. Additionally I proposE;? adding the following language to c.2. ''No brewery, winery or distillery shall be located within 300' of any school; church, residence, park or playground, any facility providing day or child care, any facility providing health care, and any other location that produces alcohol beverages.11 I believe this adequately addresses the new industry of distilleries to Carlsbad and is intended to allay the concerns of the Vilfage,and Barrio communities. Please advise as to your thoughts and any suggestions to address these matters. Thank you for your consideration on this proposal. https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/ AQMkADAw A TNiZm Y AZC liYTFjL TE2MW... 1/31/2018 Scott Donnell From: Sent: Robert Wilkinson <bob@wdesigngroup.net> Saturday, February 03, 2018 6:59 AM To: Scott Donnell Cc: Gary Nessim Subject: vb-mp comment 1 Attachments: commentsFebl.pdf ,_ Hi Scott, Attached is our opening comments on Vision and the GP. We will want to hear your reaction to these comments and will ask for a mtg over the next few weeks. More to come, keep up the good work man ! Respectfully, Robert Wilkinson Wilkinson Design Group Land Planning + Landscape Architecture bob@wdesig ng roup. net P.O. Box 4237 Carlsbad Ca, 92018-4237 760 434 2152 1 a Imagine Carlsbad Jan 2018 V-B MP COMMENTS ON DRAFT MP DOCUMENT VISION: Feb 1, 2018 We have noted and appreciate that the Vision section of the document acknowledges the Village as Carlsbad's "Downtown" as well as it's "Historic Heart". These two important functions equate to make this neighborhood Carlsbad's "Town Center'', off geographically but on both functionally and emotionally. Now our task is to make sure the new document guidance strengthens this status. To provide a full and complete background of this area and its. gravity, the document should make an additional distinction. That our City Hall is and has always been located in this area. That this facility currently sits at the edge of the Village just outside the planning boundary. It should also note that the City (Gov+ Citizens) have just started the process of selecting the final location of a new/updated Civic Center. That the current City Hall site and possibly others properties within the document's planning area will be candidates for this new flagship facility that will have the potential of significant synergy with its surrounds. GOALS & POLICY+ PLACE-MAKING: We note and appreciate these statements; "To maintain and enhance the Village as a community focal point" "C reating magnetic public spaces" "C reating a strong sense of community" These statements move us closer to building on this area's "significant bones" to truly create an authentic, unique downtown that becomes a special destination for all of Carlsbad. In response to the stated goal of enhancing ourselves as a "Beach Community" we support the objective to strengthen the connectivity between Village and Beach. This objective is not new, so it is time to act on it. In the past we have pitched ideas that respond to this need, 1) Beach Gateways that can be viewed from a distance east on CVD and "TheGrand". 2) "The Seashell" a bluff top plaza that celebrates our community's relationship with the Pacific. Illustrations of these are attached. "TheGrand" A pedestrian promenade I Ramble in the Village core : Our goal in pitching the idea of re-imagining this wide predominately auto corridor has always been two fold: First, to create a flow of daily activities and festival events along the entire length of a linear open space with a series of people plaza threaded across the full downtown core, east to west Second, to ensure that the entire corridor, formally Grand Avenue, is a safe and non intimidating atmosphere for all pedestrians and cyclist by effectively reducing the dominating effects of the remaining auto movement by reducing the area given to that use and effectively calming all of its movements. That said, we again note and appreciate the documents proposal solutions toward these objectives. Although we do not understand why alternative solutions for intersections are only proposed for ''South Village ', (Barrio). State Street north of the train station is a long straight road that handles transit traffic on a daily basis (often in a hurry) . Intersections at Beech and Laguna should be considered as candidates for alternative re-engineering. On "TheGrand'' we can support Option "B '' with modification, we believe the potential for creative use and Village enhancement increases with every foot we can add to the width of the promenade area. If done well "The Grand" will become a highly active area where neighborhood's residents, visitors from other Carlsbad neighborhoods as well as tourist gather, mingle and socia lize. As a result, the proposed double track cycle route may have a high amount of friction with may entry -exits and starts and stops however we prefer friction cyclist to cyclist instead of cyclist to motorist. That noted we can tentatively support Option "B" Bi direction cycle track and one way auto travel (west) with angled parking on the north curb. To meet our goal for 1'TheGrand" we propose the following modification, 1) reduce the raised median between one-way auto movement and the cycle track from 12 feet to 4 feet planting it with lower growing flowering ground plantings and place the residual 8 feet in the promenade bring it to a full 40ft. The 4 foot separation is adequate and at the intersections the width of the travel lane plus the 4 feet will produce a 20 foot wide area for motorist turnin g left carefully across the cycle track and allow through autos enough room to m.ove west at a calmed pace. Additionally, we propose the angled pa rking at the north curb be back-in rather than head-in . We all understand the superior visibility from this orientation and backing in to this space is no harder than backing into a parallel space. We understand that you may get considerable push back from us oldsters (change is hard) however the tested benefits of safety and efficiency of this new form of parking warrants making th is modification . If there is a decision to not go with option "B" and go with option "A" we would have other more significant issues to press. As we have stated, the calming of auto movements is a primary objective in all of the Village -Barrio. It is our belief from observation that this is currently a problem that has produce a unacceptable level of intimidation and safety concerns for both pedestrians and cyclist. In the core area both CVD and Grand have an average traffic speed that is in excess of the posted maximum. From our considerable experience in driving , cycling and walking here we have been exposed to this condition. It is our believe that the signalized intersections as well as over sized width on Grand have aided in this condition. For motorist, too often their individual desir~ to make it through these east west corridors without being held at a red light leads to increasing their pace to get through that next light and the next and the next. It is because of this condition that we proposed the alternative of "roundabout" intersections in our pitch of "The Grand". We are optimistic that Option "B" with its one-way auto movement, narrowed travel way and added friction from parking will solve the calming on Grand achieving our objectives of safety and non-intimidation there. We are also optimistic with the proposed so lutions offered for the Barrio. However, we do not see solutions to this condition for ''TheGrand" if option "A" is selected or a sol ution for CVD or State Street north of the station. Our position is that Option "A" does not work for this specific corridor because it is a series of very short blocks from connections to the ladder of presidents and State. This condition produces the opportunity for many turning movements headed south that will cross the duel directional cycle track. This produces safety concerns having too many motorist not picking up qyclist coming from opposite directions as th ey make the turn. It is because of this that the cycle track is a bit out of pl~ce here and that it only works by limiting the auto movement to the single direction in option "B". We plan on requesting a meeting with city staff on this issue in the next few weeks. Scott Donnell From: Sent: Robert Wilkinson < bob@wdesigngroup.net> Monday, February 05, 2018 7:07 AM To: Scott Donnell Cc: Gary Nessim Subject: exhibits Attachments: GP _BAJpg; Seashell_GraphicSJpg; Seashell-Colo2Jpg As mentioned in earlier correspondence emailed to you Respectfully, Robert Wilkinson Wilkinson Design Group Land Planning + Landscape Architecture bob@wdesigngroup.net P.O. Box 4237 Carlsbad Ca, 92018-4237 760 434 2152 1 l·, .,,,.,, ... I,,../( Of~ •• l r I rshore ~/ 1 • Surf ,r / /'. Shop ! j f se,a'e 1· ' ; 10'..0'' C.artsbad blvd ''Shore Line" .-\~--\ \ \ \ ' 101 Beac.1 .. Cfft BEA.CH AC,CESS GAT~Y: A Gateway .struc.ture on Ocean announces the primary beach a the w.est enci of the Grand Pr1. ~aves move as individual horizc b~nt1ers flutter in the sea bree. structure will be seen from the Promenade east. of Carlsbad E DESIGN THEME: Thie de&ign of the structure ha Asian inrluenc.e in re$ponse to Carlsbad's reJationship to the f Rim. Beach go-er& who pa&s ti the .structure will look out ovei Pacific. to the west toward C,ar Sister Gity, Futtsu Japan. From: To: Subject: Date: Julian Salazar Scott Donnell Barrio plan Wednesday, February 07, 2018 11:26:17 AM How about helping finish the gym on Roosevelt street for inner city youth. Sent from Yahoo Mall on Android From: To: Subject: Date: Hi Scott, Rosie & Robin Marks Scott Donnell Village/Barrio Plan Question Sunday, February 18, 2018 10:46:36 AM Can you tell me what exactly is meant by "the village and Barrio property owners shall be responsible for funding their fair share of physical improvements and/or projects ... " HOW MUCH do you expect to If charge" us and HOW do you propose getting the money froro us? We've lived in the Barrio for 20 years and have participated in many workshops but I don't recall at any time being told we would be expected to PAY out of our own pockets for city improvements. Also, there are many families who live in the Barrio apartments who probably do NOT have the means to pony up for the improvements. We love the quaint aspect of this town and the recent improvements seem to include HUGE 3-4 story buildings which we're not a fan of. Will we still will be expected to pay our fair share of changes we do not like?? Respectfully, Rosie Marks From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Dear Scott, Patrick Trolan Scott Donnell Brenda Trolan Village & Barrio MASTER PLAN Concern Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:35:33 PM As a property owner in the Barrio, section 5 and 5.5 in the MASTER PLAN is confusing/concerning to me as it seems to state that Barrio property owners/renters would be financially responsible for funding Village and Barrio improvements/developments? I would like it on public record that I oppose the proposition of having Barrio property owners/renters pay for such improvements/developments -that is what city tax dollars are for. Yours sincerely, Patrick Trolan From: To: Subject: Date: Mr. Donnell, simon angel Scott Donnell; Council Internet Email Village /Barrio Revised Plan Monday, February 19, 2018 5:39:48 PM I have been trying to locate a copy of the proposed plan in Spanish but I haven't been able to obtain a copy. Can you direct me to a resource where I can obtain a full copy in Spanish? Thank you. ~ Simon Angel From: Cc: Subject: Date: Councu Internet Email Citv Clerk FW: Village/Barrio Reivised Plan Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:34:34 AM City Council Members, This email has been sent to staff, the City Attorney and the City Clerk's office. Andi From: simon angel [mai1to:srangel69@yahoo.com] S,ent: Monday, February 19, 2018 10:51 AM To: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov>; Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; Michael Ajdour <michaelajd@yahoo.com>; T. Childs <childst@hotmail.com>; Michele Montenez <seachele2000@yahoo.com>i Patricia Amador <amadorap@gmail.com>; Diana Diana <foreverme760@hotmall.com>; Mary Anne Viney <maryanneviney@dslextreme.com> Subject: Vi llage/Barrio Reivised Plan I am requesting an extension of the time for public comment regarding the Revised Village/Bruno Master Plan. Since it was originally rolled out on Friday January 19, 2018 the more residents and property owners have concerns and questions. The Village/Barrio meeting held on February8, 2018 provided no more than a cursory presentation at best due to time constraints. Questions were kept to a minimum and very few people had an opportunity to examine the proposal in depth. For this reason I request an extension for public comment until March 14th, 2018. This request is reasonable and prudent considering the scope and volume of the proposed Plan and its potential impact on residents and property owners. I would also request that this e-mail be incorporated into the official record of the Village /Barrio Master Plan(Revised Proposal of 1/ 2018) Please respond at your earliest convenience. I may also be contacted at (760)405-7648. Thank you. Simon Angel THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP Scott Donnell Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 25014 Las Brisas Road South, Suite B Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 Facsimile: (951) 304-7571 February 20, 2018 Community and Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Via email and U.S. mail Re: Carlsbad Zoning/Village and Barrio Master Pl an (Revised January 2018) Dear Scott: I have now had an opportunity to review the January 2018 Revised Village and Bar:-rio Master Plan ("1/18 Master Plan"). The purpose of this letter is to provide, among other things, my comments and·concerns about the revised 1/18 Master Plan in light of the i ssues and concerns I outlined in my: a) ·December 22, 2015 letter addressed to you, Austin Silva and Jason King relating to the Master Plan published in November 2015; and b) my May 26, 2016 letter addressed to you concerning the April 2016 Revised Master Plan. A . Parking Standa rds Unfortunat ely, I see tha t the revised 1/18 Master Plan still proposes a one-third (1/3) reduction in required r e sident parking spaces for multi-family dwellings in the Village and Barrio. (See 1/18 Master ~lan, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, Page 2-22.) Furthe",tmore, the 1/1B Master Plan: a) only requires visitor parki ng for new construction in the Barrio perimeter and Barrio Center; b) no visitor parking in the Village and surrounding areas; and c) apparently no garage or covered parking for multi-family dwellings and/or condominiums. (See 1/18 Master Plan, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, Page 2-22 and Figure 2.1, Page 2-2.) This substantial reduction in required parking standards wil l, without a doubt, have a severe negati ve impact upon the Village and Barrio in the long term. Enclosed is a "Sample of Local Mintmum Parking Requirements (Revised 2/15/18)" ("Revised Parking Summary''), which I prepared and updated from my December 22, 2015 l etter. This Revised Parking Summary summarizes the general minimum parking requirements fqr a hypothetical 120-unit (30 one-bedroom, 30 two-bedroom, and 60 three-bedroom) project in Carlsbad under the existing Codes, and the 1/18 Master Plan, and compares them to ~ome .Page Two February 20, 2018 other surLounding beach cities. As can be seen by the attached Revised Parking SummaryJ the d i fference between the new Code revisions under the 1/18 Master Plan [to reduce parking space requirements] in comparison to Carlsbad's cur.cent standards and those of the other surro'Un.ding cities will be substantial. I do not believe it is in dispute that the beach and downtown areas in San Diego, Encinitas, San Clemente, and other surrounding beach cities already have significant parking issues, ·disputes and problems. Based upon these comparable numbers, it is easily foreseeable and undeniable that within ~he next ten year s the parking problems and demands in the Village and Barrio will be far more severe than what other San Diego County beach cities are currently experiencing with their higher parking standards. For example, the parking requirements for a 120-uni t in 'the beach area of San Diego t-rould require 324 · parking spaces. The current Carlsbad Code (21 .44.020 Table A)would requir e 255 spacesr but the Revised 1/18 Master Plan in the Vil·lage would only require 165 spaces, almost half of what San Diego beach area now requires. it defies common sense and esse·ntially- turns a ~'b.lind eye" to the potential· problems. that will be created by these proposed reduced parking standards ·in the Village and Barrio. It is understood that _the Village ·has a coastal train "transit" station that could potentially reduce the .parking needs for the Village. However, even under the City of San Diego's statutory scheme, the parking standards are increased when the "transi t 1' hub is located in a high "impact a r ea" such. as a beach or school zone (see Fn 3 to Revised Parking Summary) . It appears ·that the same increased parking standards should apply to the Village and Barrio proposed Master Plan. More astounding is that the proposed parking standards under the revised 1/18 Master Plan are even lower than the parking standards for .affordable housing density bonuses under current Municipal Code section 21.86.090(G) Table E (i.e., 1 BR -1 space; 2-3 BR -2 spaces; 4 or more BR -2. 5 spaces) . Based on these affordable housing bonuses, ·a 120-uni t project menti oned in the Revised Parking Surnrnary would require 210 spaces. ln other words, the revised 1/18 Master Plan is proposing new parking standards below our current affordable housing standards and will, in fact, be the lowest parking standards for any beach city in San Diego County, and perhaps all of Southern California. Again, T strongly encourage City staff to am~nd the 1/18 Master Plan to retain the i:::urrent visitor and .;;r-esident parking standards, including garages and covered parking, which·· are set forth in tbe Municipal Code Section 21.44.020 Table A. B. Minor Fermi t Review I was pleased to see that the "Minor Site Development Plan" standards for new construction "... µp to 5,000 square feet ... " have still been retained. (See 1/18 Master Plan Chapter 6, ·section 6. 3. 3, Page 6-4.) However, I am still concerned that items A(4) and A(6} under "Minor Site Page Three February 20, 2018 Development Pla.n" at page 6 -4, are still overly broad and ambiguous. As discussed in my December 22, 2015 correspondence and my May 26, 2016 letter, this vague description could and will encompass a broad array of issues that are more appropriately -'.-reserved for the Planning Commission. Therefore, I again request that City staff revisi t this issue and revise the language in these sections to r ead as follows : ''6. 3. 3 Permit Types A. Minor Site Development Plans. 4. Additions to existing struct.ures which result in a cumulative increase of internal floor area of ten percent (10%) or less regardless of the square footage." · ''6. Changes in Permitted Land ffses which result in a ten percent (10%) or·'less of increas~ in site changes, increased traffic, or increased parking -requirements.If As noted ·in my prior correspondence, the above proposed revisions would still enable City staff to ·address small issues that arise, but reserves to the. Planning Commission "changes" that vary significantly from what are Code compliant and/or have already been approved by the Planning Comi.71.i.s sion. As always, I truly appreciate your professional courtesy and cooperation as we work through these issues.. If you have any questions regarding my comments above, pleas~~feel free to call me at your earliest opportunity. JLB:kg Sincere y, THE By: cc: City Council (U.S . mail only} Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor Honorable Keith Blackburn Honorable Mark Packard Honorable Lorraine Wood Honorable Michael Schumacher Planning Commission (U.S. Mail only) Honorable Jeff Segall, Chairman Honorable Velyn Anderson Honorable Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable -.Kerry Sielanann Honorable Lisa Rodman Honorable .Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts Pam Drew,·Associate Planner (~ia email only) Barrio Neighbors (via email only) Sample of Local Minimum Parking Requirements (Revised 2/15/18) Below is a table listing some local beach cities' general minimum parking requirements for mulli-family housing,. that also references the Municipal Code section under which the requirements are established. For comparison purposes, the required off-street parking spaces, including guest parking, was calculated for a hypothetical 120 unit development consisting of: 30 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom m1its, and 60 three bedroom units. The municipalities are listed from the lowest average required spaces per unjt to the highest. Minimum Required Parking Spaces per Unit Multi-Family Developments (by Unit Type, Guest for all Un.its) Oceanside 31.3103 Carlsbad 21.44.020 Table A Solana Beach 17.52.040 San Clemente 17.64.050 Table Encinitas 35.54.030 San Diego 142.0525 Table 142.05C1 a) Basic b) Transit/low income3 c) Beach/school impact 1 BR 2BR 3BR 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 1.5 1.25 1.75 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 l.75 2.25 2 2 2 2.5 2.5 225 2.0 2.5 Proposed Draft Master Plan (Revised ,J.anuary 2018) Village/Surrounding Area 1 1.5 1.5 Barrio Center/ Perim. 11 1.5 1.5 Guest 1 p1us 20% of tota1 units .25/unit · .25/unit 0.333/unit .45/unit 220% of total off street parking required " -0- .25/unit Hypothetical 120 Unit Development Total Spaces 250 255 255 295 300 288 252 324 165 195 Spaces Per Unit 2.08 2.12 2.12 2.45 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.7 t.37 1.63 Note~ All of the above are merely the number of required parking spaces. This list does not include the additional regulations cities impose such as requiring that at least one space per unit be covered, etc. 1 San Diego Code requires more parking for developments that are '\ .. at least pa1tially within a designated beach impact area .. :1 and transit/affordable housing areas so all three calculations are provided. 2 San Diego Code allows some flexibility for common area/visitor parking to increase or decrease based on the area affected by the development. 3 "Developme,zt qualifying for both a reduced parking ratio (transit area or very low income parking ratio) and an increased parking ratio (Parking Impact Area) shall also use the basic parking ratio.', (Footnote 1 fo1· Taole 142.0SC} From: To: Subject: Date: Susan Roberts Scott Donnell Village/Barrio plan Wednesday, February 21, 201& 1:57:05 PM I have lived in Carlsbad for over 20 years and love the excitement of new stores and restaurants being added to the village. However, I am concerned that by allowing 4 story structures downtown we will lose our chamiing village feel and become like any other city. I also love the idea of a potential pedestrian only area, but am concerned about the impact on parking and the increasing homeless population using this area as a "hangout''. Please keep ow· downtown family friend1y and quaint Susan Roberts THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP Scot-c Donnell Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 25014 Las Brisas Road South, Suite 8 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephonet·(951) 304-7566 Facsimile: (951) 304-7571 February 21, 2018 Community and Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 V1a email and U.S. mail Re : Carlsbad Zoning/Village and Barrio Master Plan (Revised January 2018} Dear Scott: I just noticed a typo in the "Sample of ·Local Minimum Parking Requirements (Revised 2/15/18)" ( "Revised Parking Summary"), that was attached to my letter dated February 20, 2018. Under "Barrio Center/Perim." I inadvertently put _.''11" when it should have been a "l." Accordingly, please find an attacbeq R~vised Parking Summary that corrects the error. In addition to the above, I have reviewed the "Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual" that was revised as of June 2013 ("2013 Manual"). Chapter 6 0£ the 2013 Manual deals with the "parking program'' in the Village and contains parking standards for single and multi-family dwellings (at page 180), which I believe control over the standards set forth .in Municipal Code sectiqns set forth in Chapter 21. 44 (s.ee page 177). It is my understanding that it is the City's intent to set aside or override the parking standards set forth .. in Chapter 6 of the 2013 Manual, with those standards for the Village which are deli neated in the Village & Barrio Master Plan, revised January 2018 . Please advise if my understanding is correct, and/or if there are some other parking standards that are going to apply under the January 2018 Revised Master .Plan. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and 1 look forward to hearing from you regarding the above. JLB: kg Enclosure Si ~cerely, THE BAILEY :_(J. By: Page Two February 21, 2018 cc: City Council (U.S . mail only) Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor Honorable Keith Blackburn Honorable Mark Packard Honorable' Cori Schumacher Honorable Michael Schumacher P1anning Commission (U .S. Mail only) Honorable Jeff Segall, Chairman Honorable Velyn Anderson Honorable Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Siekmann Honorable Lisa Rodman Honorable Jeff Segall j Honorable Patrick Goyarts ~ Pam Drew, Associate Planner (via.email only) Barrio Neighbors (via email ort_ly) Sample of LocaJ Minimum Parking Requirements (Revised 2/15/18) Below is a table listing some local beach cities' general minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing, that also references the Municipal Code s~ction under which the requirements are established. For comparison purposes, the required off-street parking spaces, including guest parking, was calculated for a hypothetical 120 unit development consisting of: 30 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, and 60 three bedroom units. The municipalities are listed from the lowest average required spaces per unit to the highest. Minimum Required Parking Spaces pet Unit Multi-Family Developments (by Unit Type, Guest for all Units) Oceanside 3 )3103 Carlsbad 21.44.020 Table A Solana Beach 17.52.040 San Clemente 17.64.050 Table Encinitas 35.54.030 San Diego 142.0525 Table I 42.05C1 a) Basic b) Transit/low income3 c) Beach/school impact 1 BR 2BR 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 1.5 1.25 1.75 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 J.75 2.25 3BR 2 2 2 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.5 .l• Proposed Draft Master Plan (Revised January 2018) Village/Surrounding Area 1 1.5 1.5 Barrio Center/ Perim. 1 1.5 1.5 Guest l plus 20% of total units .25/unit .25/unit 0.333/unit .25/unit 220% of total off street parking required u ,: -0- .25/unit Hypothetical 120 Unit Development TotaJ Spaces 250 255 255 295 300 288 252 324 165 195 · Spaces Per Unit 2.08 2.12 2.12 2.45 2.5 2.4 2,l 2.7 1.37 l.63 Note: All of the above are merely the number of required parking spaces. This list does not include the additional regulations cities impose such as requiring that at least one space per unit be covered, etc. 1 San Diego Code requires more parking for developments that are" ... at least partiaJly within a designated beach impact area ... " and transit/affordable housing areas so all three calculations are provided. 2 San Diego Code allows some flexibility for common area/visitor parking to increase or decrease based on the area affected by the developJillent. 3 "Development qualifying for both a reduced parking ratio (transit area or very Low income parking ratio) and an increased parking ratio (Parking Impact Area) shall also use the basic parking ratio." (Fo~tnote l for Table 142.0SC) From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Hi Scott, Robert Wllkfnson Scott Donnell Gary Nessim MP comment Thursday, February 22, 2018 7:42:10 AM MattHall.odf OualntP!us2-20.pdf Would you confirm the closing of comment period is it end of month? Attached is another comment, a position paper that has gone to the Mayor and council as a response to a comment in a mtg. The paper and cover are cc to Don Nue, would you please see that he gets a copy. Issue -The new editions does include some good stuff on massing / setbacks and really like the 14 foot plate height for ground level commercial. That said there needs to be more direction on the level of quality and character for building facades (elevations) The record over the last few years makes it clear that we can get good and we can get bad design approved, this shows that there is not the expertise in the review approval process. Lets just add some both written and graphic descriptions of what character attributes we are looking for so there is a common vocabulary for all to refer to, this should be a help for all. If not it will mean a fight each time bad architecture comes through the pipe line and we have to point to a flaw in the MP. We will try to wrap up the rest of our comments by early next week Please see attached Respectfully, Robert Wilkinson Wilkinson Design Group Land Planning + Landscape Architecture bob@wdesigng roup. net P.O. Box 4237 Carlsbad Ca, 92018-4237 760 434 2152 fm Imagine Carlsbad February 20, 2018 Mayor Matt Hall RE: THE VILLAGE -BARRIO MASTER PLAN Dear Mayor, Thank you for the meeting back on the first of the month. During that get together you mentioned that you, and we assume most all of the council, have received mounting pressure from some citizens with the impression that our Village is losing its "quaint" atmosphere. Although we do not agree, we understand this sentiment and unfortunately do not think the current draft of the Master Plan addresses it adequately. Attached is our response and proposal for how the master plan should be amended to meet the expectation of our full community. That is better tools for all Involved ih the process of achieving high quality buildings with a Village character. This position and proposed additions to the new master plan are now going to your staff at the planning dept and will be presented to various citizen groups. It is our hope that the new plan is modified by this proposal before it comes before the Council for approval. Cc council members Ke ith Blackburn Cori Schumacher Michael Schumacker Dr. Mark Packard Chief Operating Officer -xxxxxx City Planner -Don Nue Planner -.Scott Donnell Im Imagine Carlsbad CARLSBAD'S DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD-RETAINING THE LABEL OF SPECIAL- MOVING FROM QUAINT TO AN AUTHENTIC SEASIDE VILLAGE CHARACTER Feb 20, 2018 The Carlsbad community has always held the Village as key in expressing our Small Beach Town identity. Due to the preparation of the new master plan the Village's status has come into focus where some citizens have expressed concern that planning for the area's future will mean diluting its qualities and the ''quaint" atmosphere this neighborhood has had in the past. That of a "laid back'' beach side neighborhood with a casual character where the passage of time has had less effect. Others believe that maintaining that atmosphere would be very difficult and retaining it would hamstring the area in an attempt to make it a museum piece. The goal of the Master Plan must be to move from a quaint atmosphere, a sea side village of the past, a bft of a backwater, to a popular live-work, mixed use, transit oriented neighborhood of today and tomorrow. A Village & Village South (our Historic Barrio) with a strong "Main Street' commercial core where residents needs are within easy (walk/bike) reach. Where venues and uses provide activities that draw all of Carlsbad here. A neighborhood that has strengthened its connection to its western edge, that celebrates that edge and our community's relationship to the Pacific Ocean. A "Traditional" Downtown setting whose time has come again, a seaside neighborhood that is also a City destination. It will become a neighborhood for some of us to live in but also a neighborhood for all of us to visit and celebrate life in Carlsbad. There are critical objectives the new Master Plan must acknowledge to move the Village through its transformation from a sleepy hamlet by the sea to a self contained, enriched and exciting place to live as our Downtown neighborhood. Three primary objectives are 1) to remain true & authentic to the Character our "Village" should have, 2) to remain true & authentic to what makes "Main Street Americana" special 3) to remain true & authentic as a Beach Neighborhood that sits on the edge of Southern California's Pacific Ocean. Each of these objectives are critical in meeting our expectations and in strengthening our Village's standing as a special and unique place that represents our Carlsbad Communitv Identity. Page 1of3 The Master Plan must address each of these three objectives with effective tools. Readers of the new document need to look for the specific tools required to achieve these objectives. An effective tool is needed to adequately produce the level of quality and physical character we desire in the redevelopment of the Downtown core districts, VC, HOSP & FC . All involved in proposing, reviewing and approving the rework of existing developments or proposals for new developments creating the Village's physical atmosphere will benefit by having well defined criteria to ensure the community's expectations are met. A tool must be added to the master plan to give specific direction and guidelines on architectural styles. Defining the level of quality that will have a major effect on the character of the Village Core. The mixed use and commercial developments in the core area's three districts VC, HOSP & FC of the Plan must have additional criteria to ensure a more consistent level of quality and desired Village Character is achieved. The Plan needs to add a list of desired quality/character attributes for each of the styles noted as pre-approved here to give all involved better guidance in meeting our objectives. Proposals for new architectural work will be required to respond to this criteria describing in written , graphic and oral presentation how their proposed work will meet the community's stated expectations. This may be viewed as a special step and that may be right but it is warranted as we have identified the Village as a "Special" place. Village Main Streets - Using State Street's prime block as an example, the core area's 3 districts should have a mixture of architectural styles producing the rich Villag.e fabric of multiple storefronts along their streets. The Plan should not disqualified any architectural style outright as long as it is deemed, early on in the process, as appropriate and beneficial in meeting our stated objectives. The following architectural styles with their prescribed attributes should be considered desirable and be pre approved for use in redevelopment proposals; SANTA BARBARA SPANISH Description & list of Attributes CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN Description & list of Attributes OLD WORLD TUDOR Description & list of Attributes CALIFORNIA MISSION Description & list of Attributes MID CENTURY TRADITIONAL Description & list of Attributes SEASIDE COTTAGE -BEACH AIR Description & list of Attributes Page 2of3 Attributes common to each of the listed styles are; Responsive to its site and setting Sidewalk interactive Climate adaptive Shade/shadow -day & night Sustain-ability in construction and operation The Contemporary Architectural style is currently popular and has been used in many of the recent development proposals. In response we have included some of the attributes of this style that will be used in measuring proposals and judging them for acceptance and approval. CONTEMPORARY Exciting -artistic -memorable Form & Massing -Bold not blunt or brooding Balanced composition of line, form & texture -Focal/foil; opaque-transparent Composition of materials, cone, plaster, steel, wood, glass that is pleasing to the eye. Page 3of3 From: To: Subject: Date: David Stoffel Scott Donnell Re: Carlsbad Village Master Plan Thursday, February 22, 2018 4;38:52 PM Hello Mr. Donnell, Thank you for the information. As you prepare for public hearings, would you please note that many citizens of Carlsbad have concerns about the cu rrent height permit and would prefer that it be lowered in the new Master Plan . Th is should be discussed and reviewed by the City Council. (I am hearing some clatter among Carlsbad residents that a citizen 's initiative is being considered t o prevent the Village from becoming a collection of 4 st ory-5 stories including parking garages-buildings). Dr. David Stoffel From: David Stoffel [mailto:DPStoffel@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:21 PM To: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Carlsbad Village Master Plan I have reviewed the proposal for the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and have concerns that I would like you to include. I am a native of California and have been a citizen of Carlsbad since 1983. I have been on the board of the Colony of Calavera Hills HOA and interacted w ith Mayors Casler and Lewis on many occasions. I am opposed to the height limits of the Village proposal. Four stories and 45 feet is too tall for this area. Three stories should be the limit, and even then should not be the norm. I also do not support underground parking for this area. Please relay my concerns to the appropriate parties. Thank you, Dr. David Stoffel Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: simon angel <srangel69@yahoo.com> Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:10 PM Scott Donnell Tyler Street Proposal to V/8 Master Plan Barrio Carlsbad l j pg; Barrio Carlsbad laJpg Hi Scott. These Attachments are a proposal to the Tyler Street options in the V /B Plan. Thank you Simon Angel 1 Barrio Carlsbad Community Concerns and Issues With the 2018 Revised Villag~/Barrio Master Plan TO: Scott Donnell, Planner, scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov FROM : Simon Angel, srangel69@yahoo.com February 22, 2018 Mr. Dohnell, There are a number of areas of concern and issues presented and discussed by residents of the Barrio community. Many residents have expressed that the city's V /B Plan is at times over-reaching and complicated and goes beyond simpler and less costly solutions to very straight forward issues and problems. This paper will deal primarily with the Tyter Street proposal at 4.3.11(1}, pages 4- 41 to 4-43 of the Plan. What seems to us a very straight forward proposition of making this street a one- way(south to north) is complicated by the options provided. The only option that provides for one-way is "B". Yet, this option unnecessarily provides for a "buffer" of 2' and 2 bike lanes of 6' and 7' while decreasing the parking space on the east side of Tyler Street from 81 to 7'. Neither option "A'' or "C1 provide for bike lanes which is why they are unnecessary. It makes no sense to flip the parking from the east side of the street to the west side of the street. Residents use the sidewalk on the east side of the street because it is contiguous from Chestnut Avenue to Oak Avenue and as a result of parking on the east side of the street there is a barrier of sorts from traffic. Because this street is utilized not only by passenger vehicles but also by trat:tors with long trailers delivering material and supplies and picking up products for shipping for the various busines,ses along Tyler Street, the more room to navigate this already narrow street is a matter of safety for pedestrians and drivers alike. This will also promote the safety of residents backing out of driveways. My proposal is to convert Tyler Street to a one .. way street from Chestnut Avenue to Oak Avenue(south to north). Maintain the current parking area on the east J side of Tyler Street of 8' without buffer or bike lanes. This leaves 22' for traffic traveling one way. Additionally, I propose that at the intersections of Tyler/Walnut and Tyler/Pine a minimum of 7' red curbs be provided to improve the line of sight for Ve-hides .entering Tyler Street. I would also propose that street reflectors be added to these same intersections traversing Tyler Street between the street berms on the east and west sides of the street. I believe these changes would be substantially less costly, improve the safety along this street and could be completed in a relatively short time frame. I request that this paper be incorporated ihto the official record for presentation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: simon angel <srangel69@yahoo.com > Friday, February 23, 2018 5:06 PM Scott Donnell V/B Plan Barrio Carlsbad 2.jpg; Barrio Carlsbad 2a.jpg; Barrio Carlsbad 2bJpg Hj Scott. This is the second paper that I am submitting to propose changes to the V /B Plan. Thank you. Simon Angel 1 Barrio Carlsbad Community Concerns and Issues With the Revised Village/Barrio Master Plan To: Scott Donnell, Planner, scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov FROM: Simon Angel,. srangel.69@yahoo.com February 23,2018 Mr. DonneJI, This paper addresses the concerns and issues of residents regarding "Breweries, Wjneries and Distilleries within the Barrio D.istricts(PT). Alcohol producing businesses are not appropriate within residential or m~xed use districts that have a residential element, especially in the Barrio community. In the past, the Barrio community has experienced a checkered past and the reputation attendant with that past. Overcoming these issues is an on-going effort. The Barrio of today is not the Barrio of past difficutt times. It has changed, though not always for the better. In 2017, the community (with the help of many other residents of Carlsbad) was able to deny the building of a distillery in District 6. This year, after combining District 5 and 6 and re-designating it the Pine/Tyler Barrio District, it appears that the issue of alcohol producing businesses being located in the Barrio community remains an idea that has not been dispelled. This is evidenced by comments in the Plan(page 2-3, E. Pine/Tyler Mixed Use District P/T). Breweries is an addition to the current allowable uses. It is my understanding that currently wineries are already an allowed and permitted use with a conditional permit. The primary issue in 2017 against the permitted use of distilleries in District 6 was that because there were both light industrial and residential uses this type of business was not appropriate. It was argued that any business whose primary Page 1 of 3 purpose was to produce or manufacture alcoholic beverages would be more appropriate in industrial areas along the Palomar Airport Road corridor. Indeed, most of the wineries presently locateQ in the City of Carlsbad are Joi::ated ih that area. This should be th~ rule. Likewise, distilleries and breweries should also be located in the Palomar Airport Road area. Pizza Port is located in the Village District and that may be appropriate for the Village. The Barrio community is not conducive to this type of business. Many residents arready have experienced issues and problems with patrons of the Village bars walking through the Barrio drunk, being loud and acting inappropriately. We have retail places where residents can purchase alcohol and take it home to enjoy. Despite how they describe these businesses in the best possible light, they remain alcohol production facilities. Any pre-existing winery, brewery or distrllery in any Barrio District can be "grand- fathered11. In this case I wou1d propose that this business will be allowed to remain provided thij:t it will not expand beyond its current property location. Since Breweries and Distilleries are not permitted at this time within the Barrio Districts i propose that the status quo be maintained. Presently distilleries are prohibited in any Batrio District. lt makes sense that this should apply to breweries and wineries with the exception of "grand-fathered" facilities. In the event the city moves forward with expanding alcohol proc;lucing businesses in any Barrio District, at the very least, I woulq expect the lollowing language to 2.6.8 "Area-Wide, Conditional Use Permit and Minor Conditional Use Permit Special Reg!,Jtations": "No Brewery, Winery or Distillery shall be located within 300'of any church, school, residence, park or play-ground, any facility providing child care, health care or any other location producing alcohol beverages.'' (f we cannot alter the Plan, at the very least we wish to prevent the proliferation of afcohoJ producing businesses within the Barrio Districts or mitigate the impact of these businesses on the community. Pagel of 3 Please incorporate this document into the official record for presentation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Page 3 of 3 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Hi.Mr. Donnell, Susan Roberts Scott Donnell Council Internet Email Building heights in Village Friday, February 23, 2018 5:44:03 PM Thank:youfor your prompt response to the email which I recently sent you concerning the plans for the Village. As I stated in my previous email, I am a long-time Carlsbad resident and frequent the Village almost daily to shop, eat,. and walk. While the Village plan bas brought a vibrancy to the downtown area which I appreciate, I am very concerned about the 45 foot ma.'(.Ullum height limit as specified in Section 2.7.l (page 2-39) of the plan and would further like to address this. The charm of our-village is what attractS tourists and locals downtown. High buildings would subtract from that charm and make it less appealing and just like any other town. The small town feeling in the Village is unique in coastal southern California. We still have a high sQhool homecoming parade which is reminiscent ofMain Street USA. Let's keep our village quaint, unique, and family friendly. Tall buildings do not fit in with that vision. Currently, most of the buildings are either one or tWo stories high and I think that keeping a .maximum height of no more than 25 feet would keep our downtown charming. I would like to request that another vote be put before the City Council as soon as possible on a moratorium for all project approvals 'Until the Plan is approved. Thank you for considering my suggestions. Sincerely, Susan Roberts FABRIC INVESTMENTS Carlsbad Village [DRAFTI Master Plan Feedback Below is feedback as it relates to the Draft Village Master Plan from the perspective of a private developer with three active projects in the Village. Hopefully this input is helpful as you consider all angles of this plan update. For me, these are the most critical issues: 1. Must Preserve 45' height limitation in the Village. It is essential that the 45' height limitation be preserved in the updated Village Master Plan. Allowing for a 45' height limit by no means determines that the Village will become too dense. For proper scale in a coastal village such as CBV and in order to allow for a proper variety of uses, it is important that the height limitation not be reduced. In many cases, given the trending demand for high ceilings and open spaces, 45' could still mean three story buildings. With land prices on the rise, a general housing shortage County-wide and the potential for the City to realize an increased property tax basis over the next several cycles, its vital that developers can continue to build up to 45'. 2. Parking Flexibility and Regulations. In a transitional era where transit is evolving, it's vital that City's look forward and consider flexible parking requirements for new development. Preserving the existing parking regulations, in-lieu fee options and not imposing net new parking additions on existing properties that are not being expanded is very important. Let the market reasonably determine the amount of parking that is need~d. Developers will not abuse parking regulations if the market doesn't respond well to their lack of parking. Look for opportunities to encourage bike sharing, car sharing and other efficient transportation options within new developments. Ref: Table 2-4: Allow for shared parking arrangements for different uses within a mixed~use development. Opportunities such as utilizing shared parking for office and a restaurant whereas the office is likely to utilize the majority ofthe spaces during the day and restaurant in the evening. Developers should be able to propose shared parking arrangements for compatible uses. This is important! Parking requirements for restaurants are getting increasingly prohibitive. If the parking requirement for a restaurant hovers around the 1:170sf ratio, that's pretty unattainable in most scenarios. It's even more prohibitive for smaller, boutique restaurants/cafes. Imagine a 1000 sf cafe needing 6 off-street parking spaces -there are virtually no options. Furthermore, only front of house space in a restaurant should be considered when determining the parking requirements (not sure if that was made clear). State Street retail should benefit from NCTD lot. There should be compromises available on State Street retail parking requirements given the evening availability of the NCTD lot. Smart Growth. Local Investments FABRIC INVESTMENTS Table 2-4-The ability to utilize stackers, lifts and other advanced parking efficiency solutions- why is this on a case-by-case basis? What does that mean? Challenging to plan for unknowns. Definitely should preserve the parking regulation that if you acquire an existing building and are not expanding its sqyare footage, you should not be required to provide additional off-street parking. Same goes with intensifying the use of an existing building while not expanding its footprint. To avoid mass vacancy, retail space shou ld have some flexibility in uses witho'ut having the burden of additional parking requirements or burdensome permitting processes. Studio Residential units should be parked at .5 spaces/unit, not 1. Studios are becoming the millennials ability to reside in the communities they desire without necessarily worrying about rising housing costs. Many of these dwellers are equally as efficient and resourceful with transit and do not require cars and or parking stalls. 3. Density Two main issues with the proposed density regulations: A) Dwelling Unit per Acre for VC should be adjusted. 35 d.u./acre is simply too little to justify a 3-4 story mixed use development on an acre of land. I would suggest that this number be increased to at least 44 d.u./acre. With a County wide housing shortage, there is no need to severely limit the dwelling unit counts as is being done. We already have a height limitation and parking requirements that will serve to keep it from becoming to residentially dense. B) Minimum Dwellings Unit per Acre should not exist in the VC. As the Village grows, there will be increased need for office and other commercial uses. In the VC, a developer should be able to elect to build a straight commercial building to accommodate these demands and not have to be subject to a minimum number of dwelling units. Again, thank you for your consideration and I would be more than happy to speak with any group discussing this plan and the community's diverse feedback. l<ind regards, Brendan Foote I principal Fabric Investments, Inc. brendan@fabricinvestments.com 619-840-7721 Smart Growth. Local Investments From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Elizabeth Kahahawai Scott Donnell Couridl Internet Emal! Proposed plan for the barrio Sunday, February 25, 2018 4:49:00 PM Hello there. I have learned of the Part 5 section of this plan that proposes that The Village and Barrio business and property owners become responsible for funding "their fair share" and supporting the implementation of downtown improvements and/or projects. I really don't understand what the purpose of this language is in this proposal. Why would you single out one small section of the huge Carlsbad populatlon over the whole population? It seems to me that this may very well be a way to enter in "legc;i leze" to comm it part of the population to something they do not wish to commit to ... for whatever reason. How can it be, in a "fair" society, that you might want to add more financial burdens to the backs of the most impoverished part of the city's population? How is it that we, the people of the Barrio and downtown small businesses, are in any way singled out to pay "our fair share' of what the City has tried to force down our throats in the past few years? Why are the small business owners of this portion of t he city called out in this way? How is it, that even though t he barrio came out in force to condemn a number of the plans the City and Planning Commission took it upon themselves to "consider'\ those pla ns were passed anyway? Because the city decided to align it self with unscrupulous housing and business developers, shouldn't mean that we, the poorest in the community, have our already crowded streets and population forced into the citys follies. What has happened to our City's officials and planners? What happened to the height restrictions? What happened to the morals and ethics that have been in place for yea rs? Moving ahead without proper city planning structures in place has allowed a significant departure from the foresight and goals t hat former representatives of our population put in place to protect our community. The people of Carlsbad are hard-working and industrious. We live in a good dty and do not deserve any portion of our city to become a slum, by puttlng every low income, past or present alcohol or drug abuser or crackhead into it, then request they pay more for t he privilege. Sincerely, 6'Ltze,ibett.-i Ke,iviciviciwcit 771 Camellia Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Gary Nessim <garynessim@att.net> Monday, February 26, 2018 8:10 AM Scott Donnell FW: Village Parking Attachments: PARKING IN CARLSBAD VfLLAGE AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION.docx From: Gary Nessim [mailto:garynessim@att.net] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 9:46 AM To: Robert Wilkinsbn <bob@wdesigngroup.net>; Scott Donnell (scottdonnell@carlsbadca.gov) <scottdon nell@ca rls bad ca .gov> Subject: Village Parking Scott, Dealing with parking now avoids the lawsuit that will come from an environmental group or a present landowner like the Village Faire. Gary Nessim Sea Coast Exclusive Properties 500 Grand Aven ue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-519-5556 1 PARKING IN CARLSBAD VILLAGE AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION Each time a developer buys parking spaces for a project, an encouraged and efficient development technique, there is objection by the public. The technique has been used successfully by many other cities so why so many objections? __. Most other cities build the municipal parking first and sell the spaces which already exist. This is much easier to sell to the public. Carlsbad has not even discussed building a Municipal Parking garage and most people believe that the spaces being paid for wilr never be provided. This pits the developer against the public unnecessarily. Our Growth Management Plan provides for development only if all standards for services have been met. Municipal Parking should be the same. It actua·lly is the same is properly enforced as we are required to survey our off street lot twice a y.ear, and only if less than 85% fu ll are we permitted to sell spaces. We have not been doing the surveys as required. Eventually someone will sue and prevent development until the issue is resolved by at least planning for Municipal Parking to meet the need. This would stop the momentum we have going to bring Smart Growth to the Village. Not dealing with the parking issue in this Master Plan invites a lawsuit on parking. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Gary Nessim Scott Donnell FW: Master Plan Monday, February 26, 2018 8:10:18 AM Master plan comments.docx From: Gary Nessim [mailto:garynessim@att.net] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 9:46 AM To: Robert Wilkinson <bob@wdesigngroup.net>; Scott Donnell (scott donnell @carlsbadca.gov) <scottdonnell @carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Master Plan Scott, Com ments on Master Plan for discussion. Gary Nessim Sea Coast Exclusive Properties 500 Grand Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-519-5556 Master plan Page 1-19 B 2 Rotary park no longer exists. NCTD removed it a couple of years ago. You can check with NCTD and verify that they agreed with Carlsbad Rotary that Rotary was no longer interested in the Park. Page 1-20 Using Grand Promenade as an open space park for events requires the entire width be available for event use. A cycle track defeats one of the main purposes of creating the Grand Promenade. It also has short blocks with many stops and placing bi directional bicycle traffic on one side will be dangerous or motorists. For the Village to be funded by Village Events and compete with other local Main Streets and be weaned off City General Fund subsidy we must create the funding capacity for the group assisting the master plan area. This group or groups need areas to operate farmers markets, auto shows, craft fairs, music festivals that can raise funds and attracts pedestrian traffic to the village. Promote the Grand Promenade test blocks immediately, ideally as submitted. A detailed plan for use within 6 months was submitted to engineering a year ago. Meet with Sandag and Caltrans to relocate the 15 on and off ramps on Carlsbad Village Drive. Relocation of the IS ramps should be negotiated with CALTRANS and SAN DAG as soon as possible rather than waiting for closure of Las Flores or the first phase of widening 15. Moving of 2 ofthe 4 ramps would make a huge difference in traffic flow under the TS overpass at Carlsbad Village Drive. Page 2-1 Rotary Park doesn't exist. Ground floor commercial serves local village residents first and visitors on the side, and only in the summer. Start talking to Post Office about location. Page 2-9 Provide boundary for ground floor commercial on figure 2-2. NO PARKING OR RESIDENTIAL ON FIRST FLOOR (60 FEET DEEP) from any street AND MINIMUM COMMERCIAL HEIGHT required in this area. Page 2-10 add excess dwelling unit explanation Page 2-13 Page2-20 Page 2-21 See parking Clear zone is sidewalk not street, show in drawing that way. 2.6 B Sidewalk Cafes S make 8 feet and in drawing 8 feet. 2.65 number 5 make 8 feet PARKING 1. Bank of America and other lots are already used in the evening, without permission by restaurant patrons and employees. With the increased redevelopment proposed and encouraged, buildings such as Bank of America will be redeveloped and that parking will be lost, and additional need will be created by the purchase of in-lieu parking for the commercial space on the first floor and perhaps the office space on the upper floors. Eventually we will run out of spaces which will choke off mixed use development which we are trying to encourage. 2. The study is now out of date as many new restaurants have opened since the initial survey of available spaces. While we are successful, this is encouraging 10-20 year adaptive reuse of buildings, converting from retail to restaurant without paying for parking. This discourages rebuilding of older buildings with office or residential at this time due to the savings of adaptive reuse of parking, while new buildings must provide at least residential parking on side and pay for the commercial uses. 3. Since we want both adaptive reuse and new buildings to occur concurrently, we need a better formula both to encourage new buildings and get more income into the in-lieu fee fund. 4. The in-lieu feet fund should not be used to lease parking. The fees ar_e a one time source of revenue and if parking is not purchased or built, we will run out of money and parking just like the National Debt. 5. Offering a financial incentive to developers can give us the Municipal Parking we need on a permanent basis. Leasing spaces on properties that will soon be developed just kicks the can down the road, and not very far. 6. If we offer $25,000 per Municipal Parking space built and maintained by a developer, substandard space can be efficiently used in the village and new units can be build smaller and more affordable to buyers. A minimum of 25 spaces to be provided to make use of the incentive. PARKING There are several landowners interested in parking and the financial Incentive must be stated in the new master plan to encourage the preferred use of the in-lieu fees collected which is permanent Municipal Parking. Encouraging a change in use without providing parking is a taking of another landowners property as we know that new customers will park in another ow11ers parking lot. This has been demonstrated by the Village Faire taking measures to discourage outside use of their spaces by converting to 1 hour and valet parking for their customers only. Subsidizing the creation of Municipal Parking by a public private partnership would encourage redevelopment by the Village Faire and NCTD of their surfaced parking into a mixed use parking structure with retail on the first floor. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Scott, Stephen Poovey Scott Donnell Council Internet Email Re: Please Reduce Village Center Height Limit to 25 feet Monday, February 26, 2018 11:57:05 AM Thanks for the clarification, but I think I, along with many otheIS who have also raised this concern, understand this ah-eady and feel it needs to change. We'll push it to an initiative if need be. According your line of thinking, it makes me wonder why are we considering anew plan for these areas in the first place? Ifl were to pull values ofland in the Village Center from I 996 versus now, th.ere would have been much less pressure then to go up to the extent now to get a return on investment. Your bead would have to be buried in the sand not to recognize how the evolution and growing popularity of Carlsbad would lead us towards a Village.Center that becomes less village-like over time, if we were not to act with some preservation in mind. We're seeing the pace of this activity picking up dramatically. It seems that at just about every council meeting now, a 'big box' comes up for approval. Precedent should not be the oveniding consideration of a new plan. That oversimplifies the matter, and favors landholders and developers by default. What would help more than your clarification, is to hear something more about how comments like mine are actually becoming part of a conversatio~ and aren't hitting up against what seems like a firewall. Steve Poovey Carlsbad Resident On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:59 AM Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@car1sbadca.gov> wrote: Good morning, Thank you for your comment and interest in the Village and Barrio Master Plan. For clarification, 45 feet has been the maximum building height pennitted in the Village since at least 1996. While there have been caveats to that maximum over the years (e.g., a minimum roof pitch requirement, a provision that permitted 45 feet only for buildings with commercial or residential uses over a parking structure), where the maximum height has been permitted has remained the same in the previous, current and proposed regulations for the Village. Have a nice day. Scott Dam1ell Senior Planner 163 5 Faraday: A venue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-602-4618 I 760-602-8560 fax I scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov From: Stephen Poovey [mailto:spoovey@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, Febrnary 23, 2018 3:55 PM To: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donne11@carJsbadca.gov> Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Please Reduce Village Center Height Limit to 25 feet Hi, Mr. Donnell - Thank you for welcoming comments on the Village and Barrio Master Plan 1/19/18. I live, along with my wife and three kids, in Olde Carlsbad. We use the village on a nearly daily basis, and look forward every week to the farmer's market. We are very concerned about the 45 foot maximum height limit in the Village Center (VC), as specified in Section 2.7.1 (page 2-39) of the plan. Markets are so strong, and the values of commercial real estate in this area are appreciating so fast, that we're going to see increasingly a DOMINO EFFECT in the Village Center, where developers are compelled to build high to justify the prices they're paying for the opportunity. This does not bode well for a sense of a 'village' at all. To be frank, I'm alarmed by the prospect of 45 feet, as it exceeds the standard height in the village (as Cori Schumacher recently pointed out, mostly "one-and two-story buildings") by some 20 feet or more; not even a 35 foot height limit would serve the ru·ea well. Meanwhile, to serve the city's interest of "getting people out of their cars and getting them to use (public) transit)" as Mr. Schumacher relates, there ru·e plenty of opportunities to do so immediately sun-ounding the area. We're not approaching this naively; there are significant and powerful interests behind protecting and propelling values by keeping the height maximum at 3 5-45 feet. Some of those come from outside of Carlsbad, but for those who reside in our city, we encourage them to seek opportunities not in the heart of our village, which should be preserved, but rather nearby. · Let's keep Carlsbad unique, especjally its quaint village, and protect it from developer's highest-and-best-use mantra that homogenizes and depersonalizes cityscapes. Thanks for your consideration, Steve Poovey & Family Carlsbad Residents From: To: Subject: Date: sherry a Iva rado Scott Donnell Barrio Tuesday, February 27, 2018 3:30:00 PM l. Scott for the record: around2 years ago Gary Niesem, Doug Bilse, Gil,myself and a lighting contractor the city hired walked the Barrio at night, it was decided what lighting was needed. At the time Doug said they had the funds to put new lighting on Rooseveh in the Alley between Roosevelt and Madison and also lighting on Madison and the rest of-the area they would be getting another Grant, Are we as homeowners now going to be responsible to pay for this? 2. Painting the curbs red at the comers in Barrio. 3. Tum around at the intersection of Roosevelt and Walnut, how will the big trucks, Semis be able to make the turn around to get into Goarllywood? 4. Turning Tyler Street into a one way from South to North are we as homeowners responsible for the cost to do this project? Sent from my iPhone Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Gary Nessim <garynessim@att.net> Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:00 AM Robert Wilkinson; Scott Donnell Master Plan comments on parking Attachments: PARKING IN CARLSBAD VILLAGE AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION.docx Additional comments on Master Plan parking which I would like to meet and discuss before sending to Council Members. Gary Nessim Sea Coast Exclusive Properties 500 Grand Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-519-5556 1 PARKING IN CARLSBAD VILLAGE AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION Each time a developer buys parking spaces for a project, an encouraged and efficient development technique, there is objection by the public. The technique has been used successfully by many other cities so why so many objections? Most other cities build the municipal parking first and sell the spaces which already exist. Th is is much easier to sell to the public. Carlsbad has not even discussed building a M.unicipal Parking garage and most people believe that the spaces being paid for w ill never be provided. This pits the developer against the public unnecessarily. Our Growth Management Plan provides for development only if all standards for services have been met. Municipal Parking should be the same. It actually is the same is properly enforced as we are required to survey our off street lot twice a year, and only if less than 85% full are we permitted to sell spaces. We have not been doing the surveys as required. Friday February 23 at 1pm I surveyed both RooseveJt Street parking lots and they were 100% fu ll. Our parking study is now 2 years old and many new restaurants have opened. There have been many change of uses since the survey. Eventually someone will sue and prevent development until the issue is resolved by at least planning for Municipal Parking to meet the need. This would stop the momentum we have going to bring Smart Growth to the Village. Not dealing with the parking issue in this Master Plan invites a lawsuit on parkjng. As soon as the trenching and double tracking issue is decided we can anticipate NCTD developing all their parking lots into residential uses by leasing the land to residential developers. Their plan for Carlsbad Village Station from a dozen years ago indicated their preference for residential development and shared parking garages for their residential uses and commuters and none for shared city use. Now is the time to provide an incentive to private developers to add shared municipal parking to their development plans. Offering them $25,000 per space with a minimum of 50 would likely cause those that are already impacted and have land such and The Village Faire to submit plans for a parking garage with retail on the first floor. NCTD may be encouraged by this incentive to share and build extra spaces on their property. We currently use our in lieu fee to rent spaces. This is similar to renting any property, eventually you use up your savings and are forced to leave town. Purchasing provides a long term solution and the developer is responsible for maintenance. From: Toi Cc: Subject.: Date: Attachments: Scott KeVin Dunn Scott Donnell Kirk MoeUer Villag~ and Banio Master Plan Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:51:16 AM lmaoeoot.ong imaoe002.ong I hope this email finds you well. It has been a while since we spoke last. I came to a couple strategy sessions in the first draft of the Village and Barrio Plan as a developer to give my opinion. We understand the plan is getting close and could go to Planning Commission by April. Congrats! I know you have put in some serious hours on this plan. We are active in the Village right now (currently building the Grand Madison mixed use project), designing another mixed use building and looking at other projects. We have started reviewing the proposed plan in more detail now that it is getting close to being implemented and have t wo major concerns. These are concerns that we believe will negatively affect any developer, commercial/residential tenant and end users/owners. Specifically, we are looking at the 14' minimum plate height in commercial spaces and the 5' setback per 40' of commercial space. We understand the last day for comments is tomorrow. I have copied one of our main architects on this email (Kirk Moeller with MAA). We would appreciate meeting with you tomorrow if possible for 10-15 minutes to discuss how these two requirements can negcitively affect an entire building as it relates to construction costs, ceiling heights above the 2nd floor, commercial/retail layouts, property values, etc. Please let us know if you have some time to meet. Thank you Scott, Kevin Dunn Rincon Real Estate Group Rincon Homes 3005 S El Camino Real Sao Clemente, CA 92672 o: 949.438.5494 Im: 949.637.3254 J f: 949.438.5670 e: kdnnn@rinconrm, com I w: wwwrincon~.com I w: ,,ww.rincon-home~.com CABRE#0l9964l9 Connect with us This e-mail and attachments (If any) Is Intended only for the addressee(s) and Is subject to copyright. This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient plea se advise t.he sender by return email, do not use or disdose the contents and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically stated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or Rincon Real Estate Group, Inc. From: To: Subject Date: Attachments: natalie shapiro Scott Donnell comments on Village and Barrio plan Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:49:36 PM bamo comments.dooc Hello, attached are my comments on the Village and Barrio plan. thanks Natalie February 27, 2018 Comments on Village and Barrio Plan The following are my comments on the Village and Barrio Plan. Thank you for the work on this. Natalie Shapiro 7831 Rush Rose Drive, Unit 309 Carlsbad, CA 92009 CHAPTER 2: I like that there are architectural guidelines. I also like the clause on discouraging and avoiding ""chain" corporate architecture and generic designs." It is important to retain the special character of the Barrio and Village through unique architectural styles. CHAPTER 4 : I agree that Chestnut Avenue should be a crossing area for bicyclists and pedestrians. I use this crossing frequently when bicycling as I can safely navigate across 1-5 via Chestnut. The Chestnut crossing should be enhanced to encourage bicycles and pedestrians to use this crossing. I agree that streets in the Barrio are too wide-the width is not appropriate for residential streets and it is important to narrow the streets to slow down traffic via any of the suggestions discussed in this section . CHAPTER 5: This section is vague: "The Village and Barrio residents will be responsible for supporting the implementation of downtown improvements and/or projects which have benefit to the area as a whole." What exactly does this entail? It is not clear-are they to contribute to this enhancement financially? From: To: Subject: Date: Mr. Donnell, Kathryn Antonacci Scott Donnell Village Barrio Master Plan Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:26:06 PM My name is Kathryn L. Antonacci, I have owned my home at 825 Avocado Lane, Carlsbad since 1994. I am submitting a comment on the proposed plan and wording about my responsibility to support improvements to the Village. I live in an established residential neighborhood, and should not be made to support Village improvements. This concerns me greatly. I am also concerned about the over use of pay in lieu parking waivers. I am increasingly having parking issues throughout downtown, especially since my husbands cancer requires handicapped access. TI1is is woefully Lacking in downtown. 1 would normally have spent more time reviewing and commenting on this plan, but our present circumstances don' L allow me much extra time. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Kathryn L. Antonacci Sent from my iPad From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Mr. Donnell, Brett Farrow Scott Donnell Council Internet Email Village Barrio Master Plan Comment Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:26:41 AM As a property owner and architect working in Carlsbad Village l wish to express my concerns regarding the emphasis on "community character" as a metric to be used in design review as part of the proposed Village Barrio Master Plan. I believe that in most every city or town there is a significant gulf between what is imagined as community character vs. what the community character actually is in terms of architectural design. The images used in the proposed Master Plan place a heavy emphasis on a craftsman style and applique elements such as inoperable shutters and veneer treatments. In truth the Village and Barrio have very few homes or buildings of this type. The community character for much of Carlsbad Village is actually very eclectic and somewhat modem ifnol simply utilitarian. To me much of the architectural interest of the Village is actually in the range of buildings in different styles and from different periods. Instead of aspiring to an imaginary past that does not exist we should allow for greater experimentation and w1derstand that architecture, like art, is not going to be seen the same way by all observers. Good design cannot be legislated. [ would hope that instead we add specific language to the Master Plan that gives latitude to property owners and architects so that instead of relying on cliches we are actively promoting and fostering unique and authentic places that build on the eclectic character of the Village and Barrio. Sincerely, Brett Farrow Architect Phone: (760) 230-6851 www.brettfarrowarchitect.com From: To: Subject: Date: Dear Scott, michael ajdour Scott Donnell viUage barrio plan Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:28:16 PM Hope you are doing well. Please take a moment to refer to 2 paragraphs on page 5-7. They are under section 5.5 and the first starts With "The Village and Barrio property owners and business owners shall be responsible ... " This paragraph and the next combine residents, homeowners, and business owners in the barrio and village in responsibilities, funding, and "support" in language that is disingeniously amorphous and will lead to problems down the road. We did not buy our home in an established residential neighborhood in Carlsbad to be singled out to support anyone's business development -and NOWHERE in this plan should that be stated to be our responsibility. These 2 paragraphs are inappropriate in a planning document. The vagueness of "community leaders" &the fact that business should create opportunities for residents -not the other way around in a plan that pushes for walking and biking -just adds to how misplaced these 2 paragraphes are. It is not residents's rote to improve businesses "competetiveness relative to other regional shopping centers". In whose alternative universe is a barrio resident's responsibility to make the village compete with UTC ? The plan that includes many good things like architectural guidelines. These 2 paragraphes overstep. They do not belong in a plan that's been worked on long and hard. Please include these coments in the public record. Sincerely, Julie Ajdour From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Scott, Gary Nesslm Robert WIikinson: Scott Donnell Village and Bania Master Plan comments Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:59:59 AM cansbad V)Uaae and Barno Master Plan Comments.doc:x I request these adjustments be made to the Master Plan before presentation to Planning Commission. In addition is strongly suggest you recommend allowing in lieu purchasing of 50% of residential parking spaces for units 1,000 square feet and under whether or not the concept is adopted. This encourages smaller resldential units which is highly desirable in the Village. Gary Nessim Sea Coast Exclusive Properties 500 Grand Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-519-5556 Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan Comments Page 1-11 1.5.1 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER Add #9 encourage sufficient parking to make all desired uses function well together. Page 1.14 1.5.2 MOBILITY AND PARKING A Add #11 Encourage parking once upon arrival and walking around the Village Business District to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Page 1-15 1.5.2 MOBILITY AND PARKING B Add as #1 Encourage adequate shared parking to maintain the Village Business District long term. Page 1-20 1.6.1 Key Village Recommendations Add as N Encourage shared Privately built and maintained Municipal Parking 0 Work with SANDAG and CALTRANS to relocate the Interstate 5 on and off ramps from Carlsbad Village Drive to Pio Pico to relieve the bottleneck at the Interstate 5 overpass. Page 4-21 A. GRAND AVENUE: THE GRAND PROMENADE I strongly suggest removal of the two way cycle track from the Grand Promenade. The Grand Promenade is a critical open space component that allows fundraising by the Carlsbad Village Association and other Village groups that will be created via the Farmers Market, Car Shows, etc. without long term City of Carlsbad funding of Special Events without road closures. The blocks are short and the cycle track will be dangerous and not very beneficial. We have suggested a test of 2 blocks of the Grand Promenade and the full width is needed for events to make a profit and be safe for users and visitors. The profitability is increased by the d_ecrease in labor, time, etc. that accompanies not having to close a road, tow parking violators, etc. and starting 2 hours ahead of the event rather than 6 hours ahead. In addition the Farmers Market would be 2-3 times a week at various times of the day with different vendors and customers. This 2 acre park created from already owed public space is low cost, high reward and a necessity to keep City of Carlsbad funding to a minimum long term. Add to Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2 that the green hashmarked area shall not be used for parking within 60 feet of any Street and the minimum height of the first floor in this are shall be 14 feet to allow for quality commercial uses. Page 4. 75 add letter J J. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP to develop shared municipal parking using funds from In Lieu parking fees. $25,000 is available per space for a minimum of 50 public municipal spaces per site in addition to any required spaces. Page 4.63 4.5 IMPLEMENT PARKING AND TRRANSPORTAION DEMAND STRATEGIES 4.51 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PARKING STUDIES Add The current parking study being 2 years old and recent surveys showing up to 100% use of the Roosevelt Street lots indicates the need for new parking. Over the period 2013-2018 change of uses from low demand retail to high demand restaurant has significantly increased parking demands. In addition, change of use required on parking in lieu fees while new commercial construction required in lieu fees, discouraging new development. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Scott Scott T.j. Childs Scott Donnell Comments on the Village/Barrio Plan Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:31:50 PM Y)llaoe Barno plan short comments Feb 201s.docx The comments about the Village/Barrio plan are shown in the attached file. Please make it part of the public record. Thank you. T. J. Childs (760) 351-6077 Page Paragraph number 1.3.2 Village 1-5 1.3.3 Barrio 1-7 1-7 1-7 1.4 The vision 1-8 1,5.1 Land use 1-12 1.5.1 Land use 1-13 1.5.2 mobility .l.-14 and parking Let's grow smartly not haphazardly and let's stop favoring developers over residents in terms of growth. The Barrio is one of the densest neighborhoods in the city. 'Increasing density is not always conducive to a quality neighborhood. There seem to be a disconnect between encouraging development in the periphery and this plan. When one reads the plan, particularly chapter 5, increasing development and tax revenue seem to override the desire of keeping the single-family character of the Barrio Center district Barrio Residents have been requesting these types of improvements for the last several years. It is time to stop studying this issue and start instituting basic safety measures. The idea of having a substantial railroad crossing at Chestnut Avenue is a good idea. This would connect neighborhoods that are both east and west of the railroad; and it would make it easier for residents of these neighborhood to get to the beach and to support business establishments that are west of the railroad tracks. The plan seems to cater to developers and seems to have forgotten about the homeowners. A stated vision of the plan should be to help homeowners improve their residences. This goal should be listed on the Implementation table. The city has someone on staff to help developers who wish to initiate a project. But they do have someone one on staff to help homeowners when they want to renovate their home,s. Additionally, homeowners should be given a break on the fees need to remodel their properties. They should not be charged the same amount offees as a developer. Having a two-tiered system with reasonable fees would not only encourage homeowners to improve their properties BUT ALLOW them to do so. Additionally, resurrecting low interest loan programs could help homeowners modernize and improve their properties. Many residents do not have 10k to spend on fees. In many cases 10k is their entire budget. Paragraph D states "Provide flexibility in meeting parking standards for changes in non-residential use of buildings existing as of this master plan adoption date. These accommodations allow developers to build more units, to increase density of the population but not increase the number of parking spots. More people means more cars. If they cannot find parking slots in the Village they will park in the Barrio. This is evidenced every time there is a special function in the village. The overflow of people park In Barrio. Do not decrease the parking standards. The goal of maintaining mature trees is a good goal. They beautify the landscape and provide protection from the sun and raih. Do not recommend reducing the number of red curbs in favor of increasing parking slots. Not having red curbs allows cars to park too close to the corner. When they park at the corners, one cannot see when they are trying to pull onto the street. It is particularly hard to turn onto a north south bound street from an east to west bound street. t ( 0 1.5.2 Mobility 1-15 and parking 1.5.3 1-17 Connectivity 1.5.3 1-18 Placemaking 1.5.3 1-19 Placemaking 1.6.2 1-22 1-7 Laws, 1-25 Policies and Other Influences Additionally, not having red curbs makes it hard for pedestrians to cross the street. As they must venture as far out into the street as cars do to safely cross the street. Not having red curbs allows cars to park too close to the corner. When they park at the corners, one cannot see when they are trying to pull onto a street. It is particularly hard to turn onto a north south bound street from an east to west bound street. Improving pedestrian streetscape and lighting would improve pedestrian activity. SAFETY NOW PREm LATER. Not having red curbs allows cars to park too close to the corner. When they park at the corners, one cannot see when they are trying to pull onto a street. It is particularly hard to turn onto a north south bound street from an east to west bound street. Not having red curbs makes it hard for pedestrians to cross the street. As they must venture as far out into the street as cars do; if they want to safely cross the stre-et. , Public art pieces should be created by Carlsbad artists only. There is enough talent in the city to only use homegrown artists to create public artwork. This allows the city to support local artists and it allows the city to acquire wonderful pieces of local art. We need basic lighting and basic street calming and streetscape NOW. We do not need to study filigrees and finials. We need red curbs, restriped intersections, Low cost solar LED lights and stop signs that face on north south streets and not face east west streets. WE NEED SAFETY NOW NOT PRETTY LATER. One to three years is too long to wait for the Barrio's basic safety needs to be met. I could better support the timeframe put forth in the plan, for street and lighting improvements, if basic safety measures were instituted in the Barrio NOW. Greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by undergrounding the overhead electrical wires. bO ro a. L. City of 1-26 We need basic lighting and basic street calming and basic streetscape improvements NOW. We do not need to study Carlsbad filigrees and finials. Pedestrian Master Plan We need red curbs, restriped intersections, Low cost solar LED lights and stop signs that face on north south streets and not face east west streets. WE NEED SAFETY NOW NOT PRETTY LATER. One to three years is too long to wait for the Barrio's basic safety needs to be met. I could better support the timeframe, put forth in the plan, for street and lighting improvements if basic safety measures were instituted in the Barrio now. 1.6 Area 2-13 Homeowners who currently have a chain link fence on their property should be grandfathered in and allowed to Wide replace it with a new chain link fence. Because it is so much more expensive to construct a PVC or wood fence then it is 2.6.1 Site to construct a chain link fence. This expense is cost prohibitive for many homeowners. Planning 1.6 area 2-17 If there is an exception which allows an architectural element to be 10 feet above the maximum building height, does wide this mean that the De facto height standard Is maximum height (35') plus 10' feet? That puts the building height in the -2.6.2 residential areas at 45'. Placement and Having a building facade of 45' allows buildings to "LOOM" over shorter buildings. Tall building blocks out light and cast orientation shadows on the ground which make the area feel colder. These same types of buildings were allowed in downtown -Standards Oceanside near the Regal movie theatre. They have completely changed the character of the neighborhood. This area -went from having a quaint beachy vibe to a having a cold commercial vibe. It lost its flavor. -2.6 Area Wide 2-18 Does this section pertain to residential or commercial buildings or to both? 2.6.4 Good Neighbor and outdoor dining on Private -property 2.6 Area wide 2-22 Will this requirement be grandfathered in for existing one and two-family dwelling units where there is not enough 2.6.6 Parking space to create the required number of parking spaces? If an existing second unit is less than 640sqft is it considered an Table 2-3 ADU or a second unit. If it is considered an ADU does it follow the parking requirements for one or two dwellings or does it follow the parking requirements for an ADU. a. 2.6 Area Wide 2-30 2.6.7 Standards ' Modification A. Intent 2-39 -2.7.6 Barrio----2-63 Perimeter Supplemental District Standards -A. Setbacks 2.7.7. Barrio 2-65 Center -2.7.7 Barrio 2-66 Center-Supplemental District Standards -F. Residential 2-85 Design -Items 3 and 8 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2. Maximize Pages Connectivity 4.2 and 4.5 Who will be the decision-making authority for the Barrio and the Village? The City Planner or the Planning commission. After reading Chapter 6 it is unclear who can approve these modifications. It is recommended that it clearly be stated in this section, who has the authority to approve modifications of standards. The maximum height of buildings allowed in the Village is 45'; this is way too high. It allows buildings to "LOOM" over shorter buildings. It blocks out light and cast shadows on the ground which make the area feel cold. These same types of buildings were allowed in downtown Oceanside near the Regal movie theatre. They have completely changed the character of the neighborhood. This area went from having a quaint beachy vibe to a having a cold commercial vibe. It lost its flavor. Is the parkway that is present in front of many Bartie residences included as part of the 10-foot front set back or does the 10-foot front setback start after parkway? Who will be the decision-making authority for the Barrio and the Village? The City Planner or the Planning commission. After reading Chapter 6 it's unclear who can approve these modifications. Recommend should be clearly be stated in this section who has the authority to approve modifications of standards Is the parkway that is present in front of many of the properties in the Barrio included as part of the 10-foot front set back or does the 10-foot front setback start after parkway. 3. The Barrio Residents need basic safety measures NOW 8. It is confusing what this means or what this will look like. Is there a picture of a garage with a recessed door that can be inserted into this section? The emphasizes on walking is good, but residents need safety to do this. The idea of creating a railroad crossing at Chestnut and double trenching the tracks and connecting neighborhoods that are east and west of the railroad tracks is good. Because it better connects the neighborhoods that are east and west of the freeway and south of oak to the village and the Barrio tl.0 ro a.. -If art is to be commissioned for the entry art pieces, it should be created by Carlsbad artists only. 4.3.1 Design for 4-6 Great goal but start improvements now. SAFETY NOW PRETTY LATER. Pedestrians First 4.3.2 Make 4-8 These types of improvements should be instituted on all the streets in the Barrio. Not just on streets where there Is are Carlsbad public or commercial spaces. Accessible 4.3.3 Provide a 4-9 The plan calls for utilities to be undergrounded in a 2-6+ period from the plan's ratification. Consistent Street It would increase property values and significantly improve the appearance of the neighborhood if the electrical wires Appearance were undergrounded. I recommend that undergrounding the wires happen in a shorter time than 2 to 6 years from the plans' certification and the city seriously consider using city funds to accomplish this goal. 4.3.6 Utilize and 4-10 There should be a sentence in this section which states that information about lighting the alleyways in the barrio is Make alleys shown in paragraph 4.3.9 more pedestrian Friendly 4.3.7 4-11 Art pieces should be created by Carlsbad artists only. Incorporate Arts ,, and Culture into the street scape 4.3.9 Provide 4-15 This need has been identified since 2013 why do not have the basic safety items. adequate Lighting I recommend that the implementation of lights in the alleyways be done long before the timeframe shown in implementation table, whidi is 2·6+ years. 4.3.9 Provide 4-16 WE NEED SAFETY NOW NOT PRETTY LATER. Please please STOP STUDYING THIS and start doing this. Implement this Adequate now vice the 2-6+ yeartimeframe shown in the implementation table. Lighting H. Barrio/Village 4-40 Institute basic safety measures. Stop studying this and started doing something about it. After basic safety measures Transition are implemented, then it will be time to discuss these sorts of improvements. K. Chestnut 4-48 The idea of improving Chestnut street and connecting it to the rail trail and connecting it to the neighborhoods west of Avenue the railroad tracks is a good goal. M. Other Barrio 4-48 Slower speeds in the Barrio can be achieved by reversing the stop signs so they fast on the north south streets vice the Streets east west streets. The north south streets are the long streets that people use to gain speed, when traveling through the Barrio. Having stop signs at the intersections on the long streets forces drivers to slow down when traversing through the neighborhood B. Barrio 4-53 In this paragraph it "states that traffic calming treatments could be added without the need to relocate any street Intersections infrastructure. Red curbs, restriped intersections, stops signs facing on North South streets and low-cost LED lights could also be installed without relocating street infrastructure. Institute these measures now. 4.4.12 Coastal 4-61 The idea of improving the rail trail to make it a favorable place to bike and walk and tying it into a future lowered rail Rail Trail line is good. Improvements Red Curbs to 4-64 Not having red curbs allows cars to park too close to the corner. When they park at the corners, one cannot see when Parking spaces they are trying to pull onto the street. It is particularly hard to turn onto a north south bound street from an east to west bound street. Additionally, not having red curbs makes it hard for pedestrians to cross the street. As they must venture as far out into the street as cars do to safely cross the street. 5.2.5 5-2 This goal seems to be at odds with the goal of maintain single family home and duplex nature of the Barrio Center Implications for Neighborhood as stated in Paragraph 1.3.3 the Village and Barrio 5.3 Fiscal 5-2 The well-being of the residents should be emphasized here; not just tax revenue and the tourist experience. Benefits of -Redevelopment The paragraph is written in such a manner that it puts dollars and tourist before long term residents. It's like long term residents are less importance because they will pay much less in taxes than new businesses and residents will pay. Special 5-4 Barrio residents should not be assessed for these types of measures. For years they have paid taxes and watched while assessment other neighborhoods received these improvements while they received none ofthem. Districts Area of benefit 5-4 I am against these fees. All fees that will be directly assessed to a homeowner's property should be voted on by city ~ fees residents. I am afraid that excessiv.e fees will be assessed to support grandiose unnecessary projects. OD SDG&E 5-5 Undergrounding Funds Phasing Public 5-6 improvements Roles and 5.7 responsibilities Recommend that the time frame to do this is moved up and the city consider funding the undergrounding vice waiting for SDGE to fund the undergrounding. Future more expansive public improvements should be phased in. But not at the expense of basic safety measures. Basic safety measures need to happen now. SAFETY NOW PRETTY LATER. REMOVE THIS PARAGRAPH FROM THE PLAN. A homeowner's responsibility should be to maintain their property and be a good neighbor not fund development permits and enhance the downtown shopping environment. I moved to the Barrio because it was a safe neighborhood filled with wonderful people. What I wanted was to live in great area with great people. The thought of moving into a neighborhood because it created a competitive regional shopping centers never crossed my mine. The last sentence of this paragraph states "to create a Village that is a more comfortable place to be". Since both the Barrio and Village residents are being called upon to fund these improvements. This sentence should read "create a Village area and Neighborhood that is a comfortable place to be; If the paragraph is to stay. r----a. b, ct 0. From: To: Subject: Date: Scott T.j. Childs Scott Donnell Re: Comments on the Village/Barrio Plan Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:12:14 PM One more comment about the Village/Barrio Plan. -Recommend that the maximum height of a residential building in the Barrio Central and Barrio Periphery districts be capped at 25'. This would give residents who have one story homes more privacy. No one wants something constantly looking down at their house or yard. Want residents want is privacy not observation Thank you T. J. Childs On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 10:31 :39 PM PST, T. j. Childs <chi1dst777@yahoo.com> wrote: Scott Scott The comments about the Village/Barrio plan are shown in the attached file. Please make it part of the public record. Thank you. T. J. Childs (760) 351-6077 From: To: Subject: Date: Dear Scott, mlchael ajdour Scott Donnell VIiiage/barrio plan Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:44:47 PM Hope you are doing well. Thinking about 45' height limit today . If that height could be limited to along the railroad tracks and freeway borders in the barrio, it could be a blessing instead of a curse. A sound block instead of people on balconies hovering over longtime homes. When higher buildings were originally discussed as being suitable for the perimeter, that's what we thought the perimeter was, not the extended area as now defined. Thinking geometrically -how a perimeter is actually defined. Promise not to bring up how to measure the area of a circle on pi day next month, but Please include this in the public record as today is Feb 28. Thanks for all you do, JulieAjdour barrio resident, homeowner, and parent From: To: Subject: Date: Kris Wright Scptt Donnell Fwd:VB Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:29:20 PM Thanks. If my points are not clear, I can further revise. ----------Forwarded message---------- From: Kris Wright <krjswrt222@gmaH.com> Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:47 PM Subject: VB To: Scott Donnell <scott.donnell@carJsbadca.gov> Hi Scott, I wanted to make a few comments on the Village Barrio plan to be included in the public comment section. I have been watching the development of the Barrio and Village over the past several years. Due to certain rules listed in the Vi Uage Design Manual, many developments have occurred that I feel are contrary to the Values mentioned in Envision Carlsbad such as "small town feel". Some of these "rules'' have been so loosely worded that with the new state mandates that began on January 1st of this year, I am afraid that the Village and BruTio will be decimated by unwanted features.- I have seen developments such as the WA VE be approved (using the current Village Master P lan). I am confused as to how are Village rules allow this type of development since there is nothing like it in the country: with condos, timeshares, underground elevator parking and mixed use all on 1/4 acre. There are no rules to disallow from that happening again. And if a developer decides not to go with Carlsbad's Second Dwelling unit ordinance, they can claim the new state laws which favor developers. This happened with the Lofts along Carlsbad Village Drive (where the Denny's is located). This development also exceeded the 45ft limit with the Butterfly design feature and the elevat01· shafts (both being higher than the 45 ft limit). This is why we need clear, definable objective rules in order, as a citizen to objectively delineate reasons why a development cannot be used, We also need a VB design review board! I would like the village to remain quaint, and the height limit would go a long way to insure that we will not get developers who try and maximize top dollar from a property. Some suggestions: 1. Limit height to surrounding buildings and limit that height to 30ft max. An example: right now the Carlsbad Village Center is being proposed with a 45ft height with design features well above that height limit. The excuse is ... well that is in the rules! Using that as an example, the building right next door is 29ft high and in my estimation is an historical building. That new proposed building will block a window in that historical building, I believe it contains a coin shop. In addition, heights should not be above cun-ent surroundings (across the street on CVD and State), those buildings are one story! Where is the "small town feel?" 2. Let's make sure that a monstrosity like the Wave cannot be built in the VB. What can be done to prevent that? 3. I realize that the Planning Comm.iss.ion and City council wi!J need to approve any new height limit .reduction, but I suggest that the new height be added to the plan since this conforms with the "beach-like" and "small town" feel mentioned in Envison Carlsbad. 4. Allow the formation of a Design review board 5. Make strict penalties for any project that tries to use "design features" or elevator shafts that exceed the height limit. 6. Make sure a geological repo1t is part of the development since, again with the Wave, and with the Alt Karls bad, there is underground pockets of water and springs that could cause problems for the building in the future. 7. Noise: as the Village and Barrio become more impacted with growth, people need a noise ordinance. Currently there is none, 8. Make a smooth transition from the Village into the Barrio. One can do that with the beautiful lighting. 1n fact, we need to move toward solar lighting in the Village (especially for those lamp posts along the street). 9. District 1 should be business. Only. The idea is to have residential surrounding the business district. 10. "Beach feel." The tall buildings actually block the sun and ocean breeze that gives the Village its character. Otherwise we might as well plop the Village (and call it an Urban City) into the middle of Los Angeles. thanks, Kristine Wright 4902 Via Arequipa Carlsbad, CA 92008 Kris Wright kriswrt222@gmail.com Kris Wright krjswrt222@gmail.com Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Scott, Lola's Deli <lolasdeli@sbcglobal.net> Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:39 PM Scott Donnell Don Neu; David de Cordova; Bob Ladwig Draft Master Plan Response Letter to Scott Donnell Feb 26 2018.docx I've attached a letter in response to the Draft Master Plan and for consideration of how it would impact our Walnut St. project. Again, thank you for your hard work and efforts. Regards, Teri Chalfant Ofie Escobedo Teri Chalfant c/o Lola's Mexican Food Deli 3292 Roosevelt Carlsbad, CA 92008 lolasdeli@sbcglobal.net February 26, 2018 Scott Donnell Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Dear Scott: Thank you for all your hard work on the Village/Barrio Master Plan. Wow, quite a project! Also, thank you for setting apart time to go over it with all of us in the community. It's hard for me to fathom the implications of the Master Plan, but 1 do understand the importance of having things done in an organized and timely manner. I'm writing to you because my Mom Ofie and I have been working with Bob Ladwig since 2015, with the goal of developing a mixed use project at 3304R Roosevelt St. In hopes ofcreating a project that would be well planned, self sustaining, and well received by the Barrio community. We have participated in Charettes, Barrio Strong meetings, Village meetings and have conferred with many others in order to participate in the give and take of ideas regarding the Village/Barrio comm:unity. Up to this point, we had a good plan according to the Village/Barrio Master Plan, but now in review of the draft Master Plan we've discovered the change of a S foot increase in the rear yard setback to 10 feet, and understand the chances of getting a 10 foot vacation in the front along Walnut will not be met with support from the City engineer. On that account, our project would bear a 15 foot reduction in the depth of the useable lot, which would be a major reduction in the development area of our small parcel Historically, our Barrio Carlsbad was established in the 1800's and many of the properties (including our family's) existed before the city was incorporated and thus did not conform to the new rules and regulations. Our property at 3304R is a very small parcel and if we are to follow the new regulations it would prohibit the goal we had in mind. Therefore we are petitioning the city to grandfather our request to retain the S feet in the rear yard and for the allowance of a 10 foot vacation along Walnut Sincerely-, Ofie Escobedo and Teri Chalfant cc: Don Neu David DeCordova Bob Ladwig From: To: Subject: Date: simon angel Scott Donnell 1 V/B Plan Barrio concerns and issues Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:27:36 PM Hi Scott. This is another paper on the V/B Plan. Please feel free to contact me . My cell # is (760)405-7648. Thank you. Simon Angel Barrio Carlsbad Community Concerns and Issues With the Revised Village/Barrio Master Plan TO : Scott Donnell, Planner, scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov FROM : Simon Angel, srangel69@yahoo.com February 28, 201°8 Mr. Donnell, This is another paper addressing concerns and issues of Barrio Carlsbad residents. This paper will address portions of Chapter 4, Mobility and Beautification. More specifically, 4.3.12, Intersection Design at page 4-53 and Figure 4~31 at page 4-54. Also, I will address safety and lighting issues and concerns raised by residents. Having raised concerns in 2017 and subsequently meeting with Mr. Plante from the Transportation Department in October regarding the Capital Expense Budget Allocation of approximately 1.5 tnillion dollars for Barrio street and safety improvements. This plan to address traffic calming issues is to provide 9 traffic circles at various intersections of Barrio streets. Figure 4-31 shows, in addition to traffic circles, shared intersection, bulb-outs and existing roundabout. Since traffic circles are addressed in the V /B Plan there are matters which should be addressed that you may not be aware of that were discussed in October with Mr. Plante. Among the concerns and issues raised in October were safety measures at Barrio Intersections such as stop signs, lighting, street reflectors, re-painting the cross walks, particularly on the north/south running streets of Roosevelt, Mad{son and Harding. It was pointed out that the east/west running streets are shorter between intersections and speed is less of an issue than on the north/south running streets. Page1of3 At this meeting we were advised of the city's intention to place traffic circles at 9 locations throughout the Barrio. Speaking with residents and businesses, it was learned that traffic circles could present problems, especially with businesses 1ocated along Tyler Street. These businesses receive supplies and materials and some ship out finished products. Various truck types and sizes are used to fulfill this need. As an example, Gnarlywood, located at the intersection of Walnut Avenue:and Tyler Street, are serviced by tractor trucks hauling long trailers. In speaking with the owners they indicated that traffic circles could very well inhibit such tractors and trailers from being able to safely navigate the$e traffic circles. Additionally, these vehicles come off the freeway and use the route of Jefferson to Magnolia to Roosevelt and turn on either Chestnut or Walnut to access Tyler Street. According to Mr. Plante, the plan is to place traffic circles at Oak/Roosevelt, Walnut/Roosevelt, Chestnut/Roosevelt and Magnolia/Madison with bulbouts at Pine/Roosevelt and Magnolia/Roosevelt. These are located along the route normally taken by delivery and tow trucks to access businesses afong Tyler Street. I was advised that the Oak/Tyler street intersection is rarely used due to the narrow street and traffic and parking issues which make it difficult to turn onto Tyler Street. Figure ~31 clearly shows these proposed traffic circles, bulbouts and shared space intersections. t propose that this portion of the Plan be reconsidered and examined for alternatives. lo October we were actually looking for 4 way stop signs at the intersections of -' Roosevelt/Chestnut, Roosevelt/Walnut, Roosevelt/Pine. Presently there is already a 4 way stop at Oak/Roosevelt. We also wanted 4 way stops at Magnolia/Madison, Madison/Palm, Madison/Chestnut, Madison/Walnut, Madison/Pine and Madison/Oak. On Harding we asked for 4 way stops at Harding/Palm, Harding/Pine and Harding/Oak. Presently there is a 4 way stop at Harding/Chestnut. In addition we proposed red curbs at all intersections to improve line of sight for all cross traffic and street reflectors at all intersections to improve pedestrian safety. These proposed improvements would be less costly and provide greater Page2 of3 safety for pedestrians and drivers alike. My inclination is that all these measures combined would be less than 1.5 million. Any monies left could address the lack of lighting in the Barrio for pedestrian safety at night along streets. Solar powered lights with LEDs could function with minimal cost and maintenance. We -~re not looking for tasteful or fancy but rather cost eff~ctive and practical that improves the safety of walking Barrio Streets at night. Please incorporate this document into the official record for presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Page 3 of 3 From: To: Subject: Date: Renee Kozlowski Scott Donnell Height limits for the Village Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:42:24 PM The 45 foot height limit takes so much away from or Village. It was a mistake in 2007, but we were not paying attention and now we are. Even with stepbacks unless it is a clock tower it is imposing. What is built now will be here for generations and only benefit the developers. Please reduce the height limits and even then require step backs on anything over two stories PLEASE Sent from my iPad From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Hi Scott, Qaudla Huerta Scott Donnen Adam Robinson FW: Carlsbad VIiiage [DRAFT] Master Plan Feedback Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:43:08 PM lmageOOl.ong lmaoe002.ong Just got a quick comment from another stakeholder in the Village about the draft master plan. Also thank you for letting me know that even though the comment period closes today to help staff better prepare for hearings that folks can still send you additional Input until the plannlng commission and city councll hearings. Best, Claudia From: Adam Robinson [mailto:adam@rafpacificagroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:16 PM To: Claudia Huerta <Claudia.Huerta@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: scott.donnel@carlsbad.gov Subject: Carlsbad Village [DRAFT] Master Plan Feedback I'm sorry I didn't have time to type up a letter but two important issues. Need to Preserve 45' height limitation in the Village. Allowing for a 45' height limit by no means determines that the Village will become too dense. Parking Flexibility and Regulations. Definitely should preserve the parking regulation that if you acquire an existing building and are not expanding its square footage, you should not be required to provide additional off- st reet parking. Same goes with intensifying the use of an existing building while not expanding its footprint. Retail is fluid, up and down, requires changes in use. Its best not to disable change through parking regulation because the alternative is vacant space. -RAF PACIFICAGROUP Adam S. Robinson RAF Pacifica Group 111 C Street, Suite 200 Encinitas, CA 92024 Cell: (760) 473-8838 Fax: (760} 496-2847 Emai l: adam@rafpacificagroup com Web: www.rafpadficagroup com license:# 01332472 The contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender at Tel: (760) 473-8838 immediately by telephone or by ret~rn E-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer. Thank you. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Scott, Robert Wilkinson Scott Donnell Garv Nessim: aaudia Huerta vb mp street trees Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:56:50 AM streemees.Qdf An additional comment regarding the need for a comprehensive street tree program with community input. Please see attached file Respectfully, Robert Wilkinson Wilkinson Design Group Land Planning + Landscape Architecture bob@wdesigng roup. net P.O. Box 4237 Carlsbad Ca, 92018-4237 760 434 2152 STREET TREE MASTER PLAN The master plan calls for making "Great Streets" with trees lining all of the streets that it highlights. I agree that street trees are an important element of this neighborhood. The document should call for a comprehensive tree program for the entire neighborhood. The parks department has done as good a job as can be expected however the community should be a larger part of the process. A process that is much more open and transparent. So the Master Plan should call for a Master street tree program with community input surveys and meetings so we all know what to expect. If this requires some sort of district to pay for a full tree program lets set that up. The fact that State Street received no street trees along the long streetscape of the Sea Grove condo development is a regrettable example that our current program is broken and does not meet the expectation of the community. I now hear that the parks department has selecting King Palms as the street tree for State shows more input is needed. From: To: Subject: Date: Hello Scott, Christine Lakeland Scott Dennen Building Height Wednesday, February 28, 2018 8:47:38 PM Malcingltjust. under the wire for the March 1, 2018 deadline to email input regarding the maximum aJlowablebeight of buildings in Carlsbad Village. As a homeowner and resident I am definitely in favor of keeping the allowable height at the limits of existing structures we have in Carlsbad Village. Keep Carlsbad unique. Please remember the things that make our town special rather than overcrowding it and homogenizing it until it has a sameness of too many other planned communities. cbristine lakeland (760)685-1400 From: To: Subject: Date: Jodi Tatum Scott Donnell Village of Carlsbad Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:43:14 PM When I moved to Carlsbad in 1993, I moved to a "village" not to LA. I am extremely disappointed in The City in approving 4 story buildings. Please help to keep our village feel. Sincerely, Jodi Tatum Carlsbad 92008. Please excuse any typos as this is being Sent from my iPhone. I have an attitude of gratitude. From: To: Subject: Date: atakan ince Scott Donnell Maximum height Wednesday, February 28, 2018 8:19:13 PM Dear Scott Donnell, I would like the maximum allowable height of building to be less than 45 feet. Yours, Atakan Ince, PhD Sent from my iPhone From: To: Cc: Date: Stacy Klng Scott DonneU Cori Schumacher; City clerk Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:26:18 PM Dear Mr. Donnell, I would like to express my strong preference on building story heights in the Village. I come from a city where the commuruty had to decide what was important when it came time to redesign our downtown. We had beautiful old brick buildings, 1-3 stories. But, they 1ooked dated. There was a desire to cleanup the look and update it to accommodate the growing COllllDUtlity. As a result, my hometown decided tlu·ough a thorough planning process and citizen buyoff to keep certain blocks of the city small and low density. We kept the buildings low, updated the outsides, tore out streets and made paths for pedestrians to access each shop or restaurant. In doing so, we kept a lot of natural light for concert areas, climbing structures, fountains, street fairs, art and outdoor seating for the restaurants. Larger buildings were built outside of this unique multi-block area in the center of the city. It really is a gathering place. There were parking structures built on two ends and street parking is available on the outskirts oftbe area. My entire family still lives there because they like that it still feels like a comfortable small city, all while the population has tripled. Everyday there's something to do and it's accessible. I would prefer that Carlsbad, my home for 17 years, do something similar. I also request that the maximwn allowable height of buildings in the Carlsbad Village be less than 45 ft. The area has so much potential, but not if the buildings are allowed to be too tall in the center of the city. Let's keep our existing buildings and make sure that new buildings fit in with the character that brought people, like my husband and me, to Carlsbad in tbe first place. Kind regards, Stacy and Chris King 7043 Heron Cir Carlsbad 92011 From: To: Subject: Date: Dear Scott, keith@selectormedia.com Scott Dennell Input on Max Building Heights for Carlsbad Village Wednesday, February 28, 2018 8:45:55 PM I'm writing you regarding input on the max height for buildings in Carlsbad Village. The current four-story height limit is simply incompatible with the character of the Village and out of place with the one and two-story buildings that are in the current majority. Please don't let speculative real estate developers dictate how the Village should look. Their main impetus is their bottom line, oftentimes at the expense of our quality of life. If the current four-story limit perpetuates for new bllilding projects or retrofits on existing buildings, Carlsbad Village will eventually look like what Huntington Beach has become, cramped and crowded with little parking and most natural light blocked out. Reducing the height limit to no more than two stories will allow the city to maintain its small town atmosphere and set a more reasonable standard for how Carlsbad can strike a balance between growth and sustainability. I request that thls letter be included in the public record regarding this matter and would appreciate a response, Thank you, Keith =-====i======-====== Keith Hunter keith@selectormedla.com 949-244-3943 From: To: Subject: Date: Richard Dowdy Scott Donnell I agree Wednesday, February 28, 2018 8:32:13 PM Less than four-story ( 45') buildings in Cadsbad proper. That's enough1 R.Dowdy Carlsbad, CA From: To: Subject: Date: Oiarla Boodry Scott QonneO Height restrictions Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:52:24 PM My husband and I have lived in Carlsbad since 1948 & 1954. We love our town and changing the building height limits is something that we strongly disagree with and that we feel changes the essence of our downtown from a village feel to a big city vibe. The height restriction should NOT be raised. Sincerely, Fred & Charla Boodry Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject: Date: The Mayer Family Scott Donnell Height limit in the village Wednesday, Februaiy 28, 2018 8:53:56 PM I would like to express my opinion that no building in the village should be over three stories. It goes against the visual asethetic and would effect the feel of the "village" Mary B. Mayer From: To: Subject: Date: Don Pool Scott Qoonell Height limit. Wednesday, February 28, 2018 8:00:24 PM We have lived in Carlsbad since 1964 and have been very pleased with the 35 ft limit. We hate to see out town to go a high rise city. Don Pool Sent from my iPad From: To: Subject: Date: Anna"s Business Scott Donnell Height limits Wednesday, February 28, 2018 8:42:07 PM Please be considerate of the height limits in the downtown. area. As it is certai11 buildings have exceeded the 30 foot limit.Our city has a certain charm to it and it would be nice to maintain that charm for the many generations to come. Respectfully, Anastasia Schmoll Sent from my iPbone From: To: Subject: Date: KarenAhoBrown Scott Donnell No four story buildings Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:12:58 PM No four story buildings in the village please! Dear Mr. Donnell: Note: Comments in the attached Barrio Plan [Village and Barrio Master Plan] as referenced below are provided with the email from Pete Penseyres dated 2/28/18. A few of our committee rode bikes around the village and barrio with the village and barrio plan to give you feedback We reviewed it from the perspective of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. The plan is very extensive and we do have a lot of feedback and I'll try to get to most of it here. I have minimal time to write this up so I'll do my best. We have general and specific input. Please see the attached Barrio Plan mark.ed with sticky notes with more complete mark up and specific notes which will also be submitted by Pete Penseyres separately. The goals are great .. We'd like to see some city specific standards developed for the entire city: Here are some of our suggestions o With regard to roundabouts and circles, a sharrow should be at all entrance to all roundabout as was done on our roundabout but an additional sharrow should be added further back to encourage cyclists to merge earlier and educate motorists and cyclists of the safest and most visible position to ride. This is especially true on a descent where speeds are higher. We don't want cyclists veering into the travel lane at the last moment but merging when it is safe. o With regard to sidewalk width we should aim to do better than the minimum standard of 5 -6 feet in the Village and Barrio _ o Bikes May Use Full Lane signs should be added wherever there are sharrows with sharrows every 125 feet or less and BMUFL signs every 250 feet. o Consider using the word shall instead of should overall o With regard to plantings; Keep native plantings in mind and avoid those that are fire hazard and those near walkways that could cut or are otherwise hazardous when brushed against. o Bike lanes neea door zone buffers to protect cyclists from the one of the greatest dangers of using them. 5 feet of door zone buffer assures the cyclist is out of the door zone www.goo.gl/jeX7gw along with startle space and safe passing space in the travel lane Street Design Segments Grand Both of your options include a 2 way cycle track. Keep in mind the following 1. Sidewalk riding is one of the most dahgerous in areas li~e this. Cycle tracks are equivalent to sidewalk riding. 2. You have a multitude of driveways into commercial zones. Cyclists are subject to pull out and pull in hits by motorists who when pulling into a driveway have to navigate oncoming traffic first, then 2 way bike traffic where the bikes may be moving at high speed downhill past these driveways (Grand is a descent past Village Faire for example). We have already seen cyclists hit in bike lanes when motorists pulled into the Starbucks parking lot. Studies have shown that collisions increase with the addition of cycle tracks 3. We don't recommend cycle tracks in this location where there are-intersections or driveways. Cyclists are also hidden from motorists by plantings and parked cars until the moment of impact_ See sticky notes. 4. Please remove the term "protected bike lanes". They are neither protected nor bike lanes. 90% of all accidents occur at intersections, {including driveways) where cycle tracks are less safe than the roadway as cyclists on Class IV bikeways are not visible to turning motorists as they are hidden by parked cars and landscaping. Motorists must navigate bot.h roadway traffic and 2 directions cyclists off the roadway. The Ccilifornia Vehicle Code when referring to bike lanes in CVC 21208 is referring to Class II bike lahes. These are Class IV separated bikeways. They are optional for bike use. Wherever bike. facilities are put off the roadway they need to be in addition to facilities on the roadway as educated cyclists will continue to use the roadway and have the legal right to do so. Consider that cyclists wlll be harassed for safely and legally using the roadway by motorists who equate a cycle tracks with bike lanes. Please edit your text to remove "protected bike lanes" and change to Class IV separated bikeways. 5. Cycle tracks in this location are hazardous: optionally consider making sidewall<: riding for children legal which should be done at pedestrian speeds. You may have to make a city ordinance to allow sidewalk riding and/or also a city ordinance to make speed limits on cycle tracks if you are going to put them in. Who will enforce it? 6. Who has the right of way at the driveways and intersections at the cycle track? Will you be putting stop signs for both motorists and cyclists crossing the cycle track from all directions? 7. Consider $harrows on Grand. Carlsbad Village Drive We are very happy to see the minimum standard bike lane removed from Carlsbad Village Drive that was shoehorned between a 9 ½ foot travel lane and curb with a one foot gutter pan. This was very dangerous and did not give enough safe passing room between motorists and cyclists. It also passed many driveways where there is a right hook danger with cyclists far to the right of right turning vehicles. Sharrows are the safer answer here unless you were to remove one of the travel lanes. Oak 1. Unless there is room for a 5 foot door zone buffer we don't recommend ever putting cyclists in danger by putting them in the door zone of cars where they are subject to dangerous dooring by car doors that open and throw them into the travel lane in front of moving vehicles. 2. For the same reason as above, we don't recommend the cycle track option. How will they leave the cycle track to make a left turn onto State Street to follow the rail trail? 3. Consider sharrows on Oak Street. It's fairly quiet. State Street 1. Sharrows work fine on State Street. Your drawing on the other hand shows cyclists riding on the edge of the road. Sharrows are to indicate that the safest place to ride on a substandard lane is centered in the travel lane to discourage same lane unsafe passing. Please fix your drawing so as to educate everyone correctly. I T , J * :,r I 2. Green Backing of sharrows is NOT ALLOWED in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices {MUTCD) Green paint in bike lanes is allowed but not in the roadway on sharrows. This was experimental at one time but is not now and was not accepted into the MUTCD. All facilities on the roadway must be in accord with the MUTCD. Carlsbad Blvd. 1. Again, please make sure to maintain and increase the size of door zone buffers. The door zone is where the greatest danger lies. 5 feet is needed for large doors and startle space. If there is room for buffers on both sides maintain a wide bike lane and 5 foot door zone buffer before adding the left side buffer. 2. Carlsbad Blvd is a big draw to runners (and skaters). The reason for this is that Carlsbad has the longest unobstructed coastline with very few intersections. Runners can run 6 miles in one direction without almost ever having to stop at an intersection or light. Runners have different needs than walkers. They need a softer surface, many refuse to run on concrete and they also don't want to navigate pedestrian traffic1 unpredictable children and dogs. This is why many runners use the bike lanes. Would designing for them softer surface that is visually separated from pedestrians encourage them to stay off the roadway? Also, if barriers are required between the sidewalk and the road can they be a separated type bollards? If a runner thinks they may not be able td navigate around pedestrians by leaving the sidewalk when it is blocked then they are likely opt for the road to begin with. Tyler Street 1. Tyler Street is short and dead ends at both ends. The speed limit is low, 25 miles an hour. Bike lanes are not necessary on streets with low speed limits. 2. Either sharrows or bike lanes with a 5 foot door zone buffer would work. Your drawing show travel lane buffers but not door zone buffers. Door zones are where the most danger exists. Harding Street 1. See Grand Ave for our comments on cycle tracks. The same problems exist here. There are many driveways and intersections that make them dangerous. 2. Also, Harding is a main commute road South to North to and from the East side of the Village. Fast moving cyclist will use the road and door zone bike lanes need to be replaced with door zone buffered bike lanes. Intersection Design 1. Traffic Circles and roundabouts are superior to 4 way stop signs. Please see attached sticky notes on intersection design. 2. Per the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, ,Class 2 Bike lanes must end 100 to 200 feet before and intersections where motor vehicles may make a right turn. This allows cyclists to merge left if they are going straight to avoid being "right hooked' by motorists making an illegal right turn for not making the turn from the right edge of the roadway per 0/C 22100. In addition, motorists, including police officers, will not be expecting experienced cyclists who wish to make a legal left tum to leave the bike lane to approach the intersection as close to the pedestrian refuge island as practicable per eve 22100. 3. Nowhere in the MUTCD or HDM is it allowed to continue a bike lane through an intersection. Cycling through an intersection on the edge is dangerous as it puts cyclists to the right of right turning traffic. Whether a bike lane or cycle track, no bike lane can be painted through an intersection either solid or dashed or green or not. This could cause right hook injury or deaths. None of the designs showing a bike lane through an intersection should be used. Even with the relaxation of rules, if you use a design that is not allowed in the HDM or MUTCD the city is open to greater liability when an accident occurs. In the United States motorists are to make a right turn from the right edge of the road, not across a bike lane. In the Netherlands cyclists have the right of way on the right edge of the road. In the US, this is not the case. The Netherlands also has strict liability where the motorist is at fault unless they can prove otherwise. It is the opposite in the US. Design must follow the 0/C. Enhancing the Bicycle Network 1. Laguna is already a class Ill bicycle route with sharrows 2. All existing class II bike lanes should be replaced with door zone buffered bike lanes with the ideal buffer in the door zone being 5 feet. With existing wide bike lanes staying 5 feet from the door zone puts cyclists on the lane line and too close to passing traffic. A five foot bike lane encourages cyclists to stay out of the door zone and gives safe passing room. 3. As you have stated, the majority of bicycle-motorists collisions occur at intersections, cycle tracks across driveways and intersections exacerbate this problem and make cyclists less visible to turning motorists. 4. Guiding cyclists to the right of right turning vehicles makes intersections more dangerous. Cyclists should be using the full travel lane that corresponds to their direction of travel so that motorists will turn in front of them or behind them and not across their path (as if making a right turn from the left lane}. $harrows before the intersection is the safer option 5. Roads using Sharrows should also have Bikes May Use Full Lane signs. Sharrows are noticed when they are frequent, at least every 125 feet with BMUFL signs every 250 feet. Coastal Rail Trail Improvement Be aware that many cyclists using the roundabout are not using the rail trail but are passing through the intersection as drivers of bicycles in the full travel lane and then moving into the bike lane after the roundabout. Cyclists crossing their path without stopping at the south end of the rail trail is both dangerous to themselves and other cyclist from both motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on the road. Stop signs are needed at the south end of the 2 way rail trail as it enter the roundabout. · The south end of the rail trail at Tamarack needs to allow for a left turn onto Tamarack from the Rail Trail. Right now the southbound end of the rail trail is blocked by the island in the middle of Tamarack before the railroad track. There was a discussion of paving the GD to move the south bound section of the rail trail east in order to end east of the traffic island to allow for left turns onto the roadway. A crossing is needed on Tamarack There are other suggestions in notes on the Master Plan attached. Thank you for your attention. Let us know if you have any questions. Judy Frankel Chair Bike Walk Carlsbad www.bikewalkcarlsbad.net httos:J/www.facebook.com/BikeWalkCarlsbad From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Pete Penseyres Scott Donneu Craig Wjtliams Comments on Vlllage and Barrio Plan Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:57:22 PM Chapter 4 -Mobility and Beauttficanon 2-27-18.pdf Dear Mr. Donnell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this paradigm changing plan. It goes a long way in correcting the motor centric existing roadways into complete streets that will serve people, not just people in cars. I am a long time cyclist with certification as an instructor from the League of American Bicyclists. I have made most of my comments on sticky notes on the attached pdf file of the Plan. While much of the new cycling infrastructure may encourage people who are afraid of same direction traffic to ride separated from motorists on Cycle Tracks, they greatly increase risk at driveways and intersections. To minimize this risk, they should be used where turning opportunities across the tracks are minimized, which is not the case on Grand or Harding. Please let me know if you have any questions on the comments. Pete Penseyres 2377 Ocean St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 -CHAPTER 4 - MOBILITY AND BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN - This page left intentionally blank .. 4.1 Introduction To support Master Plan goals of creating a more walkable and livable setting as well as balancing a variety of travel modes, this chapter provides public realm and street design recommendations to further the vision. In addition, the Master Plan recommendations have been developed in coordination with the Coastal Mobility Readiness Plan adopted in 2016, and the 2017 Carlsbad Village, Barrio and Beach Area Parking Management Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes walkability. The Village is a unique part of Carlsbad because of its more compact, downtown setting, its mix of uses, its proximity to the train station and transit services, the availability of public parking, and its walkable street grid:The Barrio also has a flat, walkable nature· and close proxilTl[~Y to the shops, restaurants and services in the downtown Village. For these reasons, parking and mobility should be treated differently in the Village and Barrio than in the rest of Carlsbad, which is largely hilly and suburban. Walkability is clearly a key goal for the community, and the Barrio and Village environment lends itself well to this aim. An emphasis on walkability should also look to accommodate all modes of transportation; therefore, the mobility recommendations were developed around these guiding principles: Establish connections for all modes of travel Provide modal choices and networks, including infrastructure to support all roadway users • Move people, and not just cars, by embracing a variety of transportation options Manage parking supply and demand Create a "park once" strategy in the Village that enables and encourages visitors to park once and explore the Village on foot, by bike, or by using other alternative modes Enhanced sidewalks provide an inviting pedestrian environment MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-1 Bike Lane on Carlsbad Boulevard Grand Avenue 4.2. Maximize Connectivity Mobility embraces all forms of transportation both now and in the future. To manage mobility, the community must have a good knowledge base, an awareness of current conditions, and the ability to react to changing circumstances and trends. The Village has a transit rich environment that should continue to be sustained to provide diverse mobility options to residents, workers and visitors. Sustainable transportation strategies considered for the Village and Barrio should incorporate current and future mobility modes to support continued community vitality. Through community engagement, a set of mobility initiatives were developed, tested, refined, and ultimately incorporated into the plans for the Village and Barrio. The resulting recommendations can be grouped into four categories: • Maximize Connectivity Create Livable Streets Enhance the Bike Network Implement Parking and Transportation Demand Strategies Each initiative is presented in more detail in later sections of this chapter. Carlsbad's street network is currently severely hampered due to the presence of the NCTD/ Amtrak rail line that bisects the community just west of State Street, separating the Barrio and Village from the beach.'Rail line crossings today only exist in four locations within or near the study area: the grade-separated crossing of Carlsbad Boulevard on the north end of the City; and at-grade crossings at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and Tamarack Avenue. In a similar manner, 1-5 creates another barrier that separates the Village and Barrio from the neighborhoods east of the interstate with crossings only available at Carlsbad Village Drive, Ch_estnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue within or near the study area. As both Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue are interchanges, they are not geared toward pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and access, forcing residents that live east of the interstate to usually use their cars to get to the Village, Barrio, and beach. Two initiatives are at play that can dramatically change the division of the community in the future. The first is the plan by NCTD and SANDAG to double-track the rail line; the second is the opportunity to enhance street connections between the study area and the eastern neighborhoods and provide attractive entry features, ugateways;' as a result of the proposed 1-5 enhancements. 4-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO If the double-tracking were to be constructed as an at-grade project, it will even more severely separate the community, since the number of trains would dramatically increase. However, the City of Carlsbad has stated clearly that the preference is to create a "trench" and place the rail lines in the trench, or below street level, similar to what has been done in Solana Beach south of Carlsbad. From a connectivity standpoint, lowering the rail line below street level would have a transformative impact on the lack of connectivity between the beach and the Village and Barrio neighborhoods. Where there are currently four crossing opportunities, with trenching there could be up to 10.1hese connections could be for "livable street" designs for motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists or some could be constructed for pedestrian and bicycle use only. As shown in Figure 4-1, Railroad and Interstate Crossings, reconnections would allow for multiple new routes for residents and visitors to access the beach, and would afford a real choice in mobility modes. The reconnections also would have a positive impact on emergency service response, as fire and police would no longer be forced to use only four crossings, of which three could be closed for a passing train. Furthermore, reconnections would enable residents living west of the railroad tracks and south of Oak Avenue to more easily access goods and services in the Village and Barrio, including restaurants, churches, community uses such as the Boys & Girls Club and the Senior Center, and Pine Avenue Park. Finally, a net effect of the reconnections would be to reduce reliance on Carlsbad Village Drive as the primary access to the beach, and on Tamarack Avenue as a secondary access. With the train in a trench below street level and multiple grade-separated connections across the tracks, traffic {motorized and non-motorized) could use route choices of a robust network, thereby reducing the demands on any single route. Railroad crossing options at and below street level (looking north over Carlsbad Village Drive) MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-3 Pacific Ocean Figure 4-1, Railroad and Interstate Crossings The City acknowledges that trenching the line is not a certainty in the Barrio or Village at this time. Based on the rail's current at-grade configuration, and the lack of rail crossings between Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue, the community has continually expressed a desire for an under-crossing or over-crossing of the railroad tracks at Chestnut Avenue in the Barrio to serve cyclists and pedestrians. This crossing should be pursued and not delayed by the potential future configuration of the rail line. On the east side of the community, the proposed 1-5 enhancements afford an opportunity to enhance the connections between the study area and the neighborhoods east of the interstate (at Carlsbad Village Drive, Chestnut Avenue and Tamarack Avenue as well as others) and provide gateways to serve as attractive, memorable entries to the Village and Barrio, the beach area, and the city as a whole. At a minimum, the areas around the interchange at Carlsbad Village Drive are slated to be eligible for gateway treatments that emphasize the significance of the street as a primary entry into the Village and Carlsbad. To the south, the Chestnut Avenue under-crossing is planned to have widened sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and street trees. Gateways would complement the roundabout and public art entry feature already completed at the Village's north boundary at Carlsbad Boulevard and State Street. A separate effort is c~rrently underway to design street and intersection improvements at Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard which would provide an additional opportunity to create an attractive entryway feature to the overall Village, Barrio and beach area. Given its prominence and activity level, Grand Avenue could be connected under 1-5 as part of the overall project to create an important connection for residents east of the interstate. It would al.so provide at a minimum bike, pedestrian, emergency vehicle, and transit/parking shuttle access from the east side of the interstate to the beach, Village and Barrio. Public Art at the north entrance to the Village and Carlsbad Boulevard MASTER PLAN JANlfiRY 2018 4-5 Summary of Comments on Chapter 4 -Mobility and Beautification 2-27-18 (002).pdf Page:7 • Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 11:02:29 AM -08'00' Can we add a "sharrow" here and at the other 2 exits in the center of the lane? Can this be the standard for all roundabouts and traffic circles in Carlsbad? Can there be at least one more sharrow leading into the roundabout on Carlsbad Blvd going north and south to allow/encourage cyclists to merge earlier and educate motorists and cyclists of the safest and most visible position to ride? 4.3 Create Livable Streets Creating a safe environment for walking and biking on the streets of Carlsbad is an important community goal. While Carlsbad has several desirable streets for a community in Southern California, residents expressed a desire to create even better, more walkable streets. Observed traffic volumes on major streets within t he Village and Barrio along with meetings with City engineering and emergency services staff provided insights into the opportunities that could be explored to create great streets by repurposing existing rights-of-way for other uses than just moving cars. In summary, Carlsbad has the opportunity to turn good streets into truly great streets as the following objectives note. There is a strong community desire to balance the modes of transportation with the desired and existing land use contexts on all of the streets within the study area. Traffic volumes and operations may support a reallocation of pavement for uses other than motor vehicle movement. • Trenching the railroad and reconnecting the network across the tracks greatly increases the connections and routes possible to move between the Village and Barrio areas to the beach front. Implementing parking and transportation demand management strategies would relieve pressure on the existing access routes such as Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard, particularly when combined with a reconnected street network. 4.3.1 Design for Pedestrians First Great streets are walkable streets, and an essential distinction of great walkaqle streets is that the entire space is designed as an ensemble, from the travel lanes, trees and sidewalks, to the very buildings that line the roadway. There are a variety of street types, including main streets and neighborhood streets, and each type can be designed to effectively promote walkability. The following are several key elements for creating a great pedestrian environment throughout the Village and Barrio. Appropriately designed sidewalks are essential for active pedestrian life. Streets in the commercial core should be enhanced to create more pedestrian-oriented streets to increase foot traffic. In addition, transition should be created between commercial core streets and residential streets to encourage pedestrian activity and create more walkable streets. The width of the sidewalk will vary according to its location and the uses it serves. Those widths stated below are consistent with the minimum sidewalk widths established in General Plan Mobility Element Table 3-1. 4-6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO 1. On all stre~ts in the Barrio and Village, sidewalksi¼hould~ a minimum width of five feet. ~ 2. Residential streets with multifamily uses or high foot traffic locations such as those near the beach or a park may warrant a width greater than five feet. 3. Streets adjacent to a school, such as Jefferson ~treet near Jefferson Elementary School, ~ould have a minimum width of six feet. 4. On primary commercial streets in the Village -such as Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive, Grand Avenue, and State Street -sidewalk widths of at least ten feet (twelve feet preferred) are recommended where feasible, taking into consideration the traffic volumes of the adjacent roadway. Sidewalk widths also should allow for adjacent land uses to utilize the sidewalk for outdoor seating and other activities, as appropriate. Periodic features such as curb extensions or "bulb-outs" can extend the sidewalk into the parking lane, for example, creating extra space for pedestrians, decreasing the street width pedestrians must cross, and slowing down vehicles. Existing and Proposed Conditions on Grand Avenue near State Street 5. "Reclaim" right-of-way where feasible along existing streetscape. For example, there is a key opportunity to reclaim right-of-way along Oak Avenue and streets west of Carlsbad Boulevard, where private improvements encroach or where the distinction between public and private space is unclear. Furthermore, right of way should be maintained and acquired as necessary. Page:9 Zf]Number: 1 Author: pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 10:29:10 AM -08'00' Number: 2 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 10:58:49 AM -08'00' Can "should" be changed to "must'' or "shall"? Number: 3 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 11:00:04 AM -08'00' Same comment as above. Are these minimum State requirements? If so.can they be referenced with footnotes. And if they are not requirements, then shouldn't the City of Carlsbad do better than minimum "suggestions"? I!]Number:4 Author: pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 10:38:32 AM -08'00' I Intersection and street crossings should also be evaluated to determine ways to improve walking. Following are recommendations: 1. ~rosswalks, a minimum ten feet in width, ™1ould be provided as part of all traffic calming improvements. 2. A pedestrian scramble at Roosevelt Street and Carlsbad Village Drive would improve crossings at this key intersection in the heart of the Village; Roosevelt Street serves as a prime pedestrian thoroughfare between the Village and Barrio. In addition, consider a pedestrian scramble at State Street and Carlsbad Village Drive. Pedestrian scramble at Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive 3. Traffic calming devices, such as curb extensions ("bulbouts") or enhanced pedestrian crossings should be considered and evaluated for implementation. Bulb-outs will create opportunities to plac~ furniture for public gatherings or sidewalk cafes and/or curb cafes. 4. Along Carlsbad Village Drive, Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard, mid-block pedestrian crossings could be provided at appropriate locations (e.g. where sight distance is adequate and speeds are appropriate); mid-block crossings may be appropriate along other street,s as well. 5. Signalized intersectionsIDiould provide advanced pedestrian phases allowing pedestrian traffic to take over the crosswalk before vehicles are allowed to have a green indication. 6. Building and private improvements©iould be designed so that all accessibility features are contained within the corresponding property line and do not extend into sidewalks. 4.3.2 Make Carlsbad Accessible Being a City that is accessibility-friendly can mean a lot of things. It not only includes wheelchair access, but also considerations for audio and visual impairments, among others. The following are some suggestions on impr~vements within the Village and Barrio to make Carlsbad more accessible: ~ Crosswalks should be well lit and have audio and visual signals of when it is safe for pedestrians to cross. 2. Incorporate on-street disabled parking spaces into streetscape designs. rgr· Consider intersection, street lighting, and sidewalk improvements that provide accessible paths of travel from residential areas to important Village and Barrio destinations, such as the Senior Center, Pine Avenue Park, the Post Office, and businesses that provide neighborhood goods and services. Page: 10 Ii]Number: 1 [!]Number: 2 [!)Number: 3 Author: pete Author: pete Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:02:31 AM -08'00' Subject Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:03:51 AM -08'00' Subject: Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:04:11 AM -08'00' ~ Number: 4 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 6:20:09 PM -08'00' Can countdown timers be required at all signalized intersections. ia Number: 5 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 10:56:28 AM -08'00' Can the Libraries and City Hall be specifically included here? Consistent street appearance 4.3.3 Provide a Consistent Street Appearance Street furniture, such as street lights, bus shelters, benches, trash and recycling receptacles, newspaper racks, and pedestrian wayfinding signage should be regularly spaced and typically aligned with the street trees between the sidewalk and street. Uniform gating or other standard feature could surround the bases of street trees. The consistent design and placement of these elements will provide a unifying effect throughout the Village and Barrio. Providing a consistent and desirable appearance also extends to sidewalks, nearby private property improvements, and even the manner in which refuse disposal occurs. For example, sidewalk design in the Village Center District, which encompasses the commercial core, could be comprised of two-foot by two-foot concrete squares. Similarly, onsite hardscape and landscape fronting a building should be uniform and consistent with the character of the street, with maintenance provided by the property owner. Unless there is no other option, trashlll,ould not be taken from the front of commercial core streets. Any fences and gates should be in sync with the character of the Village and not be disruptive to its pedestrian-orientation.~stly, bollards should also meet the design standards and complement the character of the Village. [gfil Overhead utilities should be placed underground or in alleys. Removing overhead utilities from the street allows for trees to grow and reduces the visual clutter along the streets. Putting utilities underground also aids the response of emergency vehicles and increases the safety margin of responding personnel. ~ MACTCD DI Aal Page:11 IT)Number: 1 [f]Number. 2 Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:06:08 AM -08'00' Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:07:07 AM -08'00' -Number: 3 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 11:08:36 AM -08'00' Are we sure this is the fast consideration? Maybe delete this word? , Number: 4 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 11:13:23 AM -08'00' Are there also safety enhancements to residents and utility workers that could be included here? Who will pay for the undergrounding and how soon can it be done? 4.3.4 Allow on-street Parking in Suitable Locations On-street parking buffers pedestrians from moving cars and calms traffic by forcing drivers to stay alert. Parallel parking is the ideal arrangement, because it keeps streets narrow. Diagonal parking is acceptable on some shopping streets to provide more parking, as long as the extra curb-to-curb width is not achieved at the expense of sidewalk width. Angled on-street parking can also be used to retrofit existing streets to provide additional parking for the Village and Barrio within the existing curb-to-curb dimension. This has already been accomplished, for example, along the west side of Madison Street between Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue. Areas that will allow for diagonal parking will be developed at a later time. Parking strategies are discussed in further detail in Section 4.5. ,()~ 4.3.5 Relocate Utility Equipment · The pedestrian realm in the Village is hampered in many places by large utility transformers. Not only do they hinder access, they mar the landscape. As feasible, existing transformers and other utility equipment should.be reJocated or placed underground. This could be accomplished through street improvement.Projects or as property redevelops. New development~ould place utilities in alleys or locations away from sidewalks and pedestrian activities. On-street parking 4.3.6 Utilize and Make Alleys More Pedestrian-Friendly The bulk of a building's parking supply and services, such as deliveries and trash collection, should occur behind the building, and, when possible, accessed from the alley. Considerations will be given to delivery times in areas where congestion is an issue. As a result, the pedestrian realm of the sidewalk will be defined by shop fronts and building entrances rather than parking lots, service areas and utility fixtures. Additionally, a uniform street alley entry design will be created with added pedestrian lighting and public art in alleys to increase walkability throughout the Village. As alleys become more important and attractive to pedestrian and other users, shop owners may be encouraged to have alley-facing public entrances. To illustrate, if the Coastal Rail Trail were relocated to the alley west of State Street as discussed in this chapter, the increase in bicyclists could energize this portion of the Village and the relationship between the train station and adjacent State Street businesses. 4-10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Pag e: 12 ~ Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 11:19:30 AM -08'00' Should reverse angle parking be considered for its safety benefits? e.g. children exiting vehicles are blocked from the street by open doors and items loaded into trunks are from the curb. Also, drivers exiting spaces have a clear view of approaching traffic and especially cyclists. IT)Number: 2 Author: pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:21:34 AM -08'00' 4.3.7 Incorporate Arts and Culture Into the Streetscape Arts and culture will help enhance the cohesive and dynamic visual character of the Village and Barrio. They can promote and engage the pedestrian experience and in turn contribute to a dynamic pedestrian environment. Arts and culture placemaking has become a major strategy for helping communities achieve their goals for creating public spaces that reflect the identity of the community, activate spaces in dynamic ways1 and make great environments that are appealing to both residents and visitors. Today these placemaking strategies include a wide range of options such as public art, pop-ups, murals, sidewalk mosaic art, sculptures, live-music, temporary installations, and a variety of community initiated programming and events. Livable streets require the design of environments that are pedestrian oriented, visually dynamic, aesthetically pleasing and programmatically vibrant. Public art can change the way people see and experience the Village and Barrio. Carlsbad residents have expressed the desire for core areas of the Village and Barrio to be activated by dynamic and rotating programming that includes music, evehts, rotating visual art, and opportunities to see and buy local art. Promoting and encouraging arts and culture in the streetscape, alleys and public spaces will help beautify the Village and Barrio and create great streets. Public art can serve as a key component of placemaking, whether at a gateway location such as Carlsbad Village Drive and Interstate 5 or on a broader scale, such as throughout the Village and Barrio. Playing a significant rofe in defining the character of a community while contributing to the aesthetic quality of public spaces, art can help make great streets, and connect the community. On a large scale, public art has the ability to unify the Village and the Barrio, identify a neighborhood gateway, and act as a focal point in a park or plaza, and preserve and celebrate the cultural heritage of the Village and Barrio. Engagf ng, human-scale art creates compelling visual connections along streets, enlivens the public realm and helps to make areas feel more cohesive. At the pedestrian scale, art can provide visual interest and create unique or special places for people to enjoy. Public art's distinct visual elements -whether permanent or temporary, kinetic or stationary, stand-alone or integrated into the architecture and landscaping -can define a destination, and gathering place, as well as serve as a wayfinding element. This is already evidenced by the murals in the Village and the sculpture in the roundabout on Carlsbad Boulevard at the north entrance to Carlsbad. Public art can also serve as a point of reference and landmark, welcoming and orienting visitors to the Village and Barrio. It can reinforce st reetsr bikeways, traffic islands, medians, and neighborhood centers. It can strengthen critical linkages, including pedestrian passages to the beach, increase the sense of safety in alleyways, illuminate pedestrian paths and enliven the pedestrian experience. Because of its potential significance to many aspects of the public realm, public art is an essential part of the planning and design phases of developmenti it allows the integration of artwork with other streetscape elements. Consideration for how public artwork appears from day to night, incorporates lighting elements, as well as how it responds to its environmental context, are important criteria. Public art for streetscape and neighborhood improvement can take many forms including: MASTER Pl.AN JANUARY 2018 4-11 A. Iconic Artwork Iconic artwork large-scale artworks can be a catalyst for positive change, helping to revitalize urban spaces in the Village and Barrio that creates an identity for the area. Significant, large-scale permanent artwork can serve to define landmarks at major gateways into the Village and the Barrio, at public gathering places and parks, and on major boulevards and intersections. B. Wayfinding Artwork Wayfinding artwork is permanent artwork located in active vehicular and pedestrian intersections. It serves to connect key locations to the Village and Barrio core, enhance pedestrian circulation, and guide passage to the beach. ·C. Temporary Art Temporary public art is a highly effective tool for developing socially engaging, in~eractive art experiences in community settings. By its fresh ·_ and timely nature, temporary art fosters artistic exploration far beyond the traditional boundaries of public art, drawing residents and visitors to the area· in anticipation of each new installation or activity. Temporary Projects can include such elements as temporary/rotating murals, community support arts in public parks, and pop-up galleries in temporarily vacant buildings. D. Points-of-Interest Artwork Points of interest artwork at boulevards and special streets are individual or multiple pieces of art placed at select locations along the sidewalks, bikeways, alleys and in open spaces along a heavily trafficked vehicular and pedestrian thoroughfare. The artworks serve as points of interest and visual respite along the corridors and to delineate and connect key places and highlights the proximity to the beach. Public art 4-12 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Public art E. Neighborhood Identity Artwork Neighborhood identity artwork is permanent artwork located in neighborhood centers, key pedestrian corridors and parks where people congregate, interact, and ·engage in social activities. The artwork augments a sense of neighborhood identity, gives homage to the cultural and historic heritage of the area, signals a community gathering place, defines a neighborhood and fosters creativity and talent. More detail on public art may be found in the city's Public Art Vision Plan. MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-13 4.3.8 Provide Shade Street trees are essential for a thriving village environment. Canopy trees that provide shade and shelter from the elements create a space where pedestrians feel comfortable, reduce the "heat island" effect, and absorb greenhouse gases. Further, retail experts have concluded that street trees add value to shopfront businesses, creating an "urban room"where people like to linger. Street trees within the Village, and especially within the Barrio, have been a point of discussion for both residents and business owners. Throughout the community engagement process, participants expressed that more mature trees are needed. The following recommendations address street trees in the Master Plan area: 1. The city's Community Forest Management Plan sets forth standards for planting, removal, replacement, maintenance and the preservation of street trees. Using a similar ,galette of species, including the use of more [#aim trees or other beach character flora, will help add to the small-town beach character of the Village and help unify it with the Barrio, an item of repeated interest from members of the community throughout the planning process. Tree canopy 2. Roosevelt and Madison streets, which serve as primary rout~s between the Village and the Barrio, are a top priority for initial planting. Street tree installation along State Street is also a priority and this would be aided by proposed street improvements discussed in on page 4-34 as the current street configuration constrains planting space. As street or infrastructure improvements are completed, consideration should be given to the planting of street trees when appropriate and feasible. 4-14 3. No tall or long hedges along the stree~r tall planters on or along sidewalks on main streets should be permitted. Trees, bushes or any plants~ould not spill into the pedestrian path along the si dewalk. 4. Besides their obvious daytime benefits, street trees also provide a valuable framework for decorative lighting, which can greatly enliven the Village nighttime atmosphere. Consideration to develop a decorative lighting program should be given. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:16 [!]Number. 1 Author. pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:28:40 AM -08'00' -Number. 2 Author. pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 11:46:46 AM -08'00' 1 Should the type of palm trees considered exdude those that provide minimal shade, grow very tall, explode when they burn, (e.g. Lilac fire) and drop dangerous fronds, such as those shown in the photo on pg 4-15? L!J Number. 3 Author: pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:39:37 AM -08'00' 4.3.9 Provide Adequate Lighting Adequate and quality lighting of streets, sidewalks and other public areas -public realm lighting-'-is essential to creating walkable neighborhoods with safe and inviting streetscapes. Streets should be appropriately lit for automobile and pedestrian safety and more lighting should be added along streets connecting residential streets to commercial streets. A combination of street lights and pedestrian-scaled light fixtures is recommended to ensure a well-lit street area. When lighting features a decorative component, it can also provide a unifying element not only along the street but within a specific area and among neighborhoods. To this end, the Village features decorative, pedestrian- scaled lighting to welcome people along Carlsbad Village Drive and a few other streets. The attractive po es an ures are en ance wit angmg ower baskets. Characterized by lower intensity light fixtures on shorter, "pedestrian-scaled" poles, pedestrian-scaled lighting is designed to illuminate walkways as opposed to pedestrian street crossings and intersections. The decorative, pedestrian-scaled lighting is not widespread in the Village and does not extend into the Barrio. The 2013 City of Carlsbad Neighborhood Enhancement Action Plan for the B~mio identifies additional lighting on streets and alleys as an objective for increasing safety in that neighborhood. The city's Street lighting 2014 "Barrio Neighborhood Lighting Guidelines" shows how lighting in the Barrio can be improved, particularly for pedestrians. These guidelines provide general information and may be supplemented by additional studies. Expansion of decorative pedestrian-scaled lighting in the Village is encouraged. Lighting in the Barrio can be similar to maintain continuity but feature Barrio-unique design elements. The city provides standard criteria for street lighting that are applicable to the Village and Barrio. Becau.se of the pedestrian focus for these two areas, the following objectives seek to provide additional lighting enhancements for the pedestrian in the "public realm:'The focus is on pedestrian lighting along Village and Barrio streets and sidewalks, however, these objectives also encourage lighting of public places, parking lots, and transit stops. Additionally, the lighting of alleyways is also recommended. MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-15 Major objectives to develop and improve public realm lighting for the Village and Barrio are as follows: 4-16 1. Complete a phasing plan that prioritizes the installation of pedestrian lighting based on factors such as street hierarchy, community need, arid pedestrian activity; accordingly, factors to consider could include the following: a. Complete pedestrian lighting on Carlsbad Boulevard, which along with Carlsbad Village Drive, is categorized in the General Plan Mobility Element as an "Identity Street:' Identity streets provide the primary Night street lighting access to the Village and Barrio and often give visitors their first impression of not only the Master PJan area but of Carlsbad as well. b. As a general rule of thumb, add pedestrian lighting along streets identified in the General Plan as "Village Streets:'which include most major streets in the Village and Barrio besides Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive. Though riot identified as a Village Street, the addition of pedestrian lighting to State Street should be included. c. Add lighting in a.reas with high pedestrian activity, either currently or as anticipated in the future. Roosevelt and Madison Streets serve as key pedestrian thoroughfares between the Village and Barrio, for example. Because of beach and summertime traffic, streets west of Carlsbad Boulevard should also be considered. This recommendation also could apply to areas where public plazas are developed, such as the Grand Avenue Promenade, discussed elsewhere in this Master Plan. d. Add pedestrian lighting along streets where development activity is occurring or is expected to occur. e. Add pedestrian lighting on streets serving important facilities, such as the Carlsbad Village Train Station, the Community Center, Senior Center, and Pine Avenue Park. f. As appropriate, consider alleyway lighting for security and safety reasons and overall goals of improving walkability and area en.b,ancement. Where adjacent to residences and particularly in the Barrio, however, such lightingWiould only be considered after the city carefully studies and consults with adjacent property owners and residents due to the potential for undesirable light and glare. The city should consider a pilot project on one block of an alleyway to help determine appropriate lighting and neighborhood reaction. 2. To maintain unity with the Village yet provide some distinctiveness, consider pedestrian lighting in the Barrio that is similar to that in the Village but that has elements unique to the Barrio. Distinctiveness could be achieved, for example, by using a different colored concrete pole or light fixture and different filigree and finials. Alternatively, lighting that has a uniform appearance throughout the Village and Barrio is another option. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:18 tf]Number: l Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 11:46:46 AM -08'00' Other public realm lighting objectives include the following: 1. Develop public realm lighting in consultation with the City Engineer. 2. Generally place street lights in alignment with street trees. Coordinate the placement of fixtures with the organization of sidewalks, street furniture, landscaping, building entries, curb cuts, signage, etc. 3. Keep the height of pedestrian-scaled light fixtures low (generally not taller than fifteen feet) to promote a pedestrian scale to the public realm and to minimize light spill to adjoining properties. · 4. Closely space pedestrian-scaled light fixtures in areas where pedestrian and commercial activity is most intense, such as the Village Center and Hospitality Districts. Generally, fixtures should be no more than thirty feet on center to provide appropriate levels of illumination. 5. Light poles may include armatures that allow for the hanging of banners or other amenities (e.g., hanging flower baskets, artwork, etc.). Bollard lighting 6. Consideration of security and pedestrian comfort shall be prioritized by increasing illumination low to the ground in public parking lots, public plazas, and transit stops. 7. To increase safety, help geographic orientation and highlight the identity of an area, the below street elements are encouraged to be lit: a. Transit Stops: People feel more secure when transit stops are well-lit. Lighting also draws attention to and encourages use of such amenities. b. Edges: Edges of a parking lot or plaza should be lit to define and identify the space. c. Focal Points: Lighted sculptures, fountains, and towers in a neighborhood, especially those visible to pedestrians and vehicles, provide a form of wayfinding. 8. Light fixtures shall be downcast or low cut-off fixtures to prevent glare and light pollution. 9. Energy-efficient lamps shall be used for all public realm lighting. 4.3.10 Festival Streets/Shared Space Streets The concept of shared space creates an area where the hierarchy of travel modes is inherently equalized and one in which pedestrians are elevated (literally and figuratively) to the same level as motor vehicles. To create shared space (also known by Dutch word "woonerf"), the street is reconstructed without curbs, so that a consistent, level platform runs from building face to building face. Or, shared space can also be constructed on a street w!th curbs and a continuous material on the sidewalks and travel lanes, from building facade to building facade. The various realms for movement such as cars, parking, walking, biking, and shopping can be denoted by landscape and different paving materials, and reinforced with planters or other movable physical separators. An advantage of this street type is its flexibility; if it is desired to temporarily close the street for a festival or an evening event, the resultant space is devoid of curbs and trip hazards and can be given over 100% to people. During community engagement, this concept was discussed as a possibility for Grand Avenue between Roosevelt Street and the railroad tracks. Lively public gathering space 4-18 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO A festival street may close once per year or once per month, depending on the agenda of the City and the residents. It is flexible, and ls intended to tolerate car traffic, while allowing cyclists and pedestrians to dominate. At times, the Grand Promenade may function as both a festiva l street and a promenade. Besides Grand Avenue, the Master Plan presents the shared space concept as an option for other streets in the Village and the Barrio. These streets include north-south running streets in the Village such as State and Roosevelt Streets and the portion of Lincoln Street between Oak Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard (also recommended by the Master Plan to be reconfigured as a pedestrian plaza). In the Barrio, and as discussed further in this chapter, Tyler Street and the intersection of Roosevelt and Walnut Avenues are also suggested as shared spaces. Potentially, these other streets could also serve as festival streets, where appropriate. At the corner of Roosevelt Street and Walnut Avenue stands one of the landmarks of the Barrio. Lola's is a local market and deli that has been owned by the same family for many years. Directly across Walnut Avenue from Lola's is the Barrio Museum which is also run by the same family. Among the most active uses in the neighborhood, Lola's and the museum create one of the central meeting places for the neighborhood. As the Barrio matures and grows, new residents and visitors will come to Lola's and the museum. Accordingly, private and public investments should reinforce the civic nature of this natural gathering space. Walnut Avenue can be reimagined as an inviting, "shared'' space or festival street where pedestrians and cars share the right-of-way, perhaps extending to the alley east of Roosevelt Street. Continuous paving from building face to building face can create a cohesive area where pedestrians and cars share the space and help create a more pedestrian active realm. Additional street trees can be added along Roosevelt Street between on-street parking spaces to reduce speeding. A small monument or public artwork could be placed in the intersection to make motorists aware that they have arrived at a special place at the heart of the Barrio. 4.3.11 Street Design Great streets do more than move cars or even people. They create places where people want to be, places where people are safe and comfortable, and places that people find interesting and beautiful. They are places to meet neighbors, go to a restaurant, window shop, or enjoy a walk. Village and Barrio streets are different from other streets throughout Carlsbad in that they are already compact and allow people to walk from one place to another. But more can be done to enhance streets in the Village and Barrio to balance all modes of transportation while creating places that people want to be. This section outlines potential street rrnprovements to create great streets within the Village and Barrio. See Figure 4-2 for street cross section and plan locations. MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-19 4-20 Pacific Ocean PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO A. Grand Avenue: The Grand Promenade-Street Cross Section 1 Grand Avenue has a reputation for being a special place in the City of Carlsbad. A destination for many residents, Grand Avenue has a variety of shops and restaurants that are appropriately scaled for pedestrian accessibility. In addition, several mature street trees line the sidewalk and are within the median, making this one of the most popular places to travel by foot in the Village. Throughout the master planning process, residents expressed the potential in Grand Avenue and suggested that the street become even more pedestrian friendly-that it be designed as a promenade. In response, a new design includes a wide promenade, intended to be a place for people to dine, to stroll and to gather. This design is intended for Grand Avenue, from State Street to Jefferson Avenue; however, the extents may be adjusted in order to implement the upgrades in a phased sequence. This type of place is intended to accommodate slow moving car traffic, while allowing walkers, bikers and patrons to dominate. It is designed to be busy and inviting, which is key to the economic success of town and village centers. The more people that are passing by a storefront or restaurant, the more likely they are to discover or try something new. Well-designed awnings and expansive sidewalks make the town center a competitive market place. The spaces that define the center of the community need to be designed for people to benefit local businesses. An idea for the promenade along Grand Avenue is for it to be designed with a hardscape, such as pavers or brick that will help to distinguish the pedestrian space from the adjacent asphalt travel lanes (decorative patterns may also be used). Within the promenade, there is sufficient width to accommodate those that are walking along the street as well as outdoor dining for restaurants and activities such as an expanded Farmers' Market or a local art show. Each of these helps to activate the space, creating a dynamic and interesting place where people want to be. Figures 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 show existing and proposed conditions for Grand Avenue. Existing conditions provide for a hundred-foot right of way with seventy-six feet of roadway area as measured from curb to curb. Two westbound travel lanes and one eastbound travel lane are flanked on the north side by an eight-foot parallel parking lane and on the south side by twenty-feet of diagonal parking. A twelve-foot vehicular turn lane is located in the center of the street where a landscaped median is intermittently provided. Twelve-foot sidewalks on each side of the street complete the existing right-of-way improvements. Proposed conditions would convert the southern half of the right-of-way to an enhanced pedestrian zone and two-way cycle track. The resulting broad thirty-two-foot sidewalk would accommodate additional landscaping, outdoor dining, street furnishings, ~n ample pedestrian walkway. The proposed two-way cycle track would be physically separated from motor traffic ~istinct from the sidewalk. Cycle tracks are an exclusive bicycle facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bicycle lane. ~ Two options are provided for the northern half of the right-of-way. The first option supports two-~traffic with one travel lane in each direction, with parallel parking along the northern curb. The second option facilitates more parking with diagonal spaces with a reduction in travel lanes to a one-way westbound travel lane. In addition, both options maintain access to alleys along the south side of Grand Avenue. aAIIC.'T'Cbnl "'"' _ Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 8:31:52 PM -08'00' . .,physically separated from motor traffic, EXCEPT AT DRIVEWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS, and distinct ... Number. 2 Author. pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 7;36:06 PM -08'00' If the two way cycle track proposal is utilized, it will not be mandatory for cyclists to use it Those cyclists who choose to ride legally in the roadway are likely to be harassed unless a robust education campaign is provided to all citizens in the City and sharrows are placed in the center of the traffic lanes to educate those who are missed by the education efforts. c Number. 3 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 7:19:15 PM -08'00' Mid-block alleys and intersections create conflrct areas between motorists and cyclists using the Cycle Track. Who will have the right of way and how will this be signed? If motorists have the right of way, then stop signs and legends on the pavement Will be necessary at each driVeway on both sides. If cyclists have the right of way then stop or at least yield (to bikes) signs and pavement markings will be necessary at each driveway on both sides of the cycfe track or at feast one side for a one Way alley. ~ Number. 4 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 8:26:40 PM -08'00' There are currently 9 driveways and 6 intersections from Carlsbad Bfvd to Harding Ave where this 2 way Cycfe Track is proposed. Since about 90% of all caJ'-bike crashes occur at intersections or driveways, those cyclists who are comfortable with riding in the traffic lane should be explicitly encouraged to avoid these turning hazards by riding legally-and following all the rules of the road. 4-22 17 S 12 12 SIDEWALK PARKING TRAVB.LANE TRAVB.LANE "" "' ::, u 0 z ~ 12' MEDIAN 76' CUR8TOCURS 100' RIGHT-Of.WAY 17 TRAVEL LANE DIAGONAL PARKING 17 SIDEWALK Figure 4-3, Grand Avenue: Existing Conditions Section between Roosevelt Street and Madison Street PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.181 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO G) Proposed Condition Option A 12' 12' 12' SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE TRAVaL.ANE 0 0 z II ~ ill 0 II CUR8TOCURa 100 12' CYCLETRACK -----_ ___,,,Rl""Gl:Jw;l-Qf:WAY _ Figure 4-4, Grand Avenue: Proposed Conditions A MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 ., 32 "' SIDEWALK 0 la ~, i:5 4-23 Page:25 Number: 1 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 8:33:46 PM -08'00' The Cycle Track shown in Figure 4-4 is problematic. For example, It may fill with debris; the cyclist riding against traffic can not make a right tum into a driveway on the other side of the street a vehicle emerging from a driveway may block the bikeway while waiting to enter the street (the vehicle may have to be in the bikeway in order to see roadway traffic); the cyclist may not have a clear view of an approaching vehicle turning into the bikeway to access a driveway and/or the driver may not see the cyclist. Will sharrows be added to the travel lanes for cyclists who choose to ride in the roadway? 4-24 G) Proposed Condition Option B WESTBOUND "' 12' "" 16' SIDEWALK U DIAGONAL PARKING 0 TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN U CYCLETRACK I 11 ffll 56' CURB TO CURB 100 RIGHT-OF-WAY Figure 4-5, Grand Avenue: Proposed Condftions B PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 32' SIDEWALK u II CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO B. Carlsbad Village Drive West of Carlsbad Boulevard-Street Cross Section 2 Carlsbad Village Drive west of Carlsbad Boulevard provides east-west mobility through the most western portion of the Master Plan area and is designated as a Village Street by the General Plan Mobility Element. This segment of Carlsbad Village Drive provides a primary beach access at the end of the street and deserves unique recommendations tailored for the higher activity levels at this location. Existing Condition WESTBOUND EASTBOUND p ~1 t 10' 8' 12' 10' 12' SIDEWALK PARKING TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN/ TRAVEL LANE co TURN LANE O< ::, (.) 0 z !;; ~ CURB TO CURB 80' RIGHT-OF-WAY Figure 4-6, West Carlsbad Village Drive: Existing Condition MASTER PLAN JANIIARV 701R p 18' DIAGONAL PARKING The proposed improvements would include the elimination of the painted street median to provide room for sidewalks on both side of Carlsbad Village Drive and added street parking. Proposed .conditions would create ten additional parking spaces, a mix of diagonal and parallel parking spaces. Bulbouts, street trees, and wider sidewalks (ten feet) enhance the pedestrian environment. Removal and undergrounding of utility cabinets would also enhance this important entrance to the beach. A designated loading and unloading zone would be located at the western end of the street to accommodate beach drop-off and pick-up needs. Figures 4-7 and 4-9 illustrates proposed concepts for Carlsbad Village Drive west of Carlsbad Boulevard. 4-26 @ Proposed Condit ion 18' 12' 12· 18' DIAGONAL PARKING TRAVEL LANE TRAVa LANE DIAGONAL PARKING 60' CURB TO CURB 80' RIGHT-OF-WAY Figure 4-7, West Carlsbad Village Drive: Proposed Condition PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 C) z ~ i:S CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO MASTER PLAN @ Street Plan Existing Parking: 30 Spaces (Diagonal and Parallel Parking) Stripe~ Median Figure 4-8, Carlsbad Village Drive West of Carlsbad Boulevard: Existing Condition JANUARY 2018 4-27 4-28 Proposed Parking: 40 Spaces (Diagonal and Parallel Parking) ~~~~~-10 Foot Sidewa lks (Both sides of Carlsbad Village Drive) Parallel ~rking and Possible%EV Parking [QF1 ,,..q;~=a-==---=;~'*-" Beach Loading and Unloading Zone and Bulbout Figure 4-9, Carlsba~ Village Drive West of Carlsbad Boulevard: Proposed Condition P.UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:30 [!]Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/19/2018 12:09:31 PM -08'00' Number: 2 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 12:09:57 PM -08'00' NEV? C. Carlsbad Village Drive (Interstate 5 to Carlsbad Boulevard)-Street Cross Section 3 The 1-5 interchange at Carlsbad Village Drive forms one of the primary entries into the Carlsbad Village center. For many visitors, this is their first impression of the City, and the elevation of 1-5 allows those passing by to see quite far down Carlsbad Village Drive. Special gateway enhancements at this intersection would greatly help to define a memorable entry into the Village. The experience of entering Carlsbad at this location can be improved dramatically by adjusting the elements within the right-of-way. Care should be given to increasing the comfort for pedestrians and cyclists. Sidewalks should be broad and should continuously connect throughout. Sidewalks should be sheltered from adjacent vehicular travel lanes by regularly spaced street trees. Street tree species should be chosen to provide adequate shade o_ver sidewalks but that are also drought tolerant. Lighting should be scal ed for both the vehicular thoroughfare as well as the pedestrians on sidewalks. Additional landscaping, and public art would further augment the attractiveness of Carlsbad Village Drive for pedestrians and cyclists. Figures 4-1 O and 4-11 show existing and proposed conditions for Carlsbad Village Drive. Existing conditions provide an eighty-foot right of way with sixty feet of roadway area as measured from curb to curb. Two eastbound and two westbound vehicle travel lanes are provided with five-foot bicycle lanes on each side. No parking lanes are provided. Travel lanes are divided with an eleven-foot turn lane. A nine-foot sidewalk is located along both the northern and southern parkways. @ Existing Condition SIDEWALK SIXl: ., LANE a I C TOCIJRa 80' RIGHT-Of.WAY Figure 4-10, Carlsbad Village Drive: Existing Conditions Section MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-29 Proposed conditions would improve pedestrian facilities by extending the curb toward the centerline by approximately five feet and six inches to create a total sidewalk width of fourteen feet and six inches on both sides, allowing for enhanced pedestrian mobility, landscaping, and amenities such as street furniture. Bicycle lanes would be replaced with sharrow markings to facilitate the pedestrian enhancements. Right-of-way width, vehicle lanes and the turn lane would remain the same. However, removal of bicycle lanes should not take place until adequate replacement bicycle facilities are provided on Oak Avenue, the street parallel to and south of Carlsbad Village Drive. Such adequate facilities are proposed on Oak Avenue. · @ Proposed Condition Figure 4-11, Carlsbad Village Drive: Proposed Conditions ,. .. ,. D. Oak Avenue-Street Cross Section 4 Oak Avenue provides east-west mobility through the central portion of the Master Plan area and is designated as a Village Street by the General Plan Mobility Element. Figures 4-121 4-13, and 4-14 show existing and proposed conditions. Existing conditions provide an eighty-foot right of way with forty-eight feet of roadway area as measured from curb to curb. One westbound travel lane and one eastbound travel lane are each flanked by an eight-foot parallel parking lane. Six-foot sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Beyond the sidewalk, the right-of-way is characterized by a number of private encroachments. < Two options are provided for Oak Avenue. As a near-term solution, Option A would re-purpose the existing paved roadway through striping two 1 a-foot travel lanes, two six-foot bicycle lanes, and two eight-foot parking lanes. This option would leave private encroachments undisturbed. As a longer-term solution, Option B would utilize the full existing public rigbt-of-way. Proposed improvements would enhance bicycle facilities by providing two one-way cycle tracks separated from vehicular traffic by landscaped planters and parallel parking lanes. In addition, sidewalk widths would be increased from six feet to 1 O feet to improve pedestrian mobility. Travel lanes would be increased from ten feet to eleven feet in width, while the on-street parking lanes would remain at eight feet. @ Existing Condition p ~ ::;; 6' 8' I u IDEWA PARKING < 0 m "' u "' ::, m u w 0 '< z > !2l °' il5 Q. WESTBOUND EASTBOUND 16' 16' 8' T!<AVELLANE lRA VEL LANE PARKING CURB TO CURS 80' RIGHT-OF-WAY Figure 4-12, Oak Avenue: Existing Conditions Section MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-31 @ Proposed Condition Option A WE'ST80UND EASTBOUND • l • BIKE TR .. V£lLANE TAAVELLANE BIKE LANE LANE CURS TO CURB I llill -I i•i !.l ~ 11181 •· \lO I I ,_ -., .. UIIII ,ll •• /\ I • liil ~ f Ir .l .. - I Hll -I 11 t f ' ' 111 • 6 Figure 4-13, Oak Avenue: Proposed Conditions A -Striping DI IDI 1r o e,neu, nn•~ .... , ,....., !"'age: .Y+ Number: 1 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 8:58:54 PM -08'00' This short term solution which allows continued private encroachment into the public right of way forces cyclists into the door zone of parked vehicles rather than allowing them to stay outside that danger zone by sharing the lane with motorists on a road with a 25 MPH speed limit All mandatory use Class 2 Bike Lanes adjacent to parked motor vehicles should have an absolute minimum of a 3ft, and preferably 5 ft buffer to the parked vehicles. rt that width cannot be allocated, then the travel lane should be marked with sharrows. MASTER PLAN @ Propqsed Condition Option B 10' 11· 1· TRAVELIANE TRAVEL lANE 38' CURS TO CURS SO' RIGHT-OF-WAY Figure 4-14, Oak Avenue: Proposed Conditions B JANUARY 2018 10' 4-33 Page:35 _ Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 9:10:11 PM -08'00' This is a better proposal for pedestrians, but many cyclists will prefer to ride in the travel lanes to avoid the turning conflicts at every driveway and intersection as well as the hazard from pedestrians who cross the cycle track from or to their parked vehicles. Sharrows and/or BMUFL signs should be considered in addition to a robust education program to let motorists and cyclists know that they have a legal option to ride in the travel lanes. E. State Street-Street Cross Section 5 From Carlsbad Village Drive north to Grand Avenue, State Street forms the heart of Carlsbad. This part of State Street functions as a lively and successful main street for the Village. Framed by nearly continuous one-story and two-story buildings with shops and restaurants on both sides of the street, wide enough to accommodate twelve-foot sidewalks with mature shade trees, angled parking and one narrow travel lane in each direction, this block of State Street is among the most pedestrian friendly in the Village. The existing street design does works well for businesses, pedestrians and motorists alike, and could stay the same for as long as it continues to serve the needs of the Village well. Described existing and proposed conditions apply to the segments of State Street north of Christiansen Avenue and south of Carlsbad Village Drive (these portions of State Street have similar right of way widths; no changes are proposed for the State Street segment ih between, which has a wider right of way). Figures 4-15 and 4-16 show existing and proposed conditions. In addition to the concepts expressed below, State Street is also described in Section 4.3.1 Oas a potential festival street. Existing conditions provide a sixty-foot right of way with forty-five feet of roadway area as measured from curb to curb. Two-way traffic i.s accommodated with a fifteen-foot northbound travel lane and a fourteen~foot southbound travel lane, with both sides flanked with eight-foot parallel parking lanes. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street (seven feet on the west side and eight feet on the east side). Proposed conditions would provide pedestrian irpprovements by widening both sidewalks to twelve feet to accommodate street trees, furnishings, and an ample pedestrian walkway. Bulb-outs could also be added to expand opportunities for outdoor dining, or additional landscaping and public art liJicycle mobility would be enhanced through the provision of sharrows. Shared lane markings, or "sharrows," are road markings used to indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles. Among other benefits, shared lane markings reinforce the legitimac~ of bicycle traffic on the street, recommend proper bicyclist positioning, and may be configured to offer directional Qf and wayfinding guidance. Both vehicular travel lanes would be reduced to ten feet in width and parallel parking lanes would remain at eight feet in width. A simple transformation can be achieved by narrowing the travel lanes to accommodate wider sidewalks similar to those on the portion of State Street by Grand Avenue, and the ability to add generous shade trees to both sides of the street. Narrower travel lanes will make cars travel slower, making it more comfortable for cyclists to share the road. Incorporate bulb-outs along State Street from Oak Avenue to Christiansen Way. Additionally, further pedestrian improvements could be realized by minimizing curb cuts and encouraging alley access along the west side of State Street. Converting the parking lot at the northwest corner of State Street and Grand Avenue into a public plaza, as this plan encourages, could eliminate a curb cut and enable more public parking to be added along the street. 4-34 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page: 36 [!]Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/27/2018 9:18:47 PM -08'00' "'Number: 2 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 9:25:30 PM -08'00' This excellent discussion regarding the use of sharrows validates many earlier comments regarding use of the travel lanes when more restrictive door zone bike lanes or Cycle Tracks are proposed. Should this be repeated or emphasized as an option when parking and the adjacent travel lane does not allow for an adequate buffer @ Existing Condition 7' 8' SIDEWALK PARKING SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 15' 14' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 45' CURB TO CURB 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY 8' 8' PARKING SIDEWALK d) Cl! ::l (.) 0 z ~ X ,w Figure 4-15, State Street: Existing Conditions Section -North of Christiansen Avenue and South of Carlsbad Village Drive MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-35 4-36 @ Proposed Condition 12' "' "' 8' 10' 10' 8' [11 12' SIDEWALK PARKING TRAVELLANE TRAVfil.LANE PARKfNG U SIDEWALK 36' CUR8TOCUR8 YJ' RIGKT-OfsWAY 11 Figure 4-16, State Street: Proposed Conditions Plan -North of Christiansen Avenue ,,, and South of Carlsbad Village Drive PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:38 _ Number. 1 Author. pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/19/2018 12:37:54 PM -08'00' The artist rendition shows the cyclists in both directions squeezed into the door zone between passing cars. This is NOT safe for cyclists nor convenient for people in cars who might be encouraged by irritated drivers behind them to attempt an unsafe pass. Unfortunately, almost all but a very few educated cyclists will ride exactly as shown, rather than over the sharrows directly in front of or behind motorists. Alternatively, they will ride on the sidewalks, unless it is impossible with sidewalk furniture that would restrict pedestrians. The "before'' and "after" exhibits below (Figure 4-17) show how State Street could be transformed by proposed improvements and conceptual new building construction. Looking north on the street from a point near Christiansen Way (see Section 5 on Figure 4-2), the after image depicts widened sidewalks, new landscaping, and sharrows painted on the street, as depicted in Figure 4-16. The after image also conceptually illustrates a new building on the west side of the street; this building, conforming to the standards and guidelines of Master Plan Chapter 2, is provided solely to depict how new construction could appear along State Street. Figure 4-17, State Street Before and After (Conceptual, looking north from near Christiansen Way) MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-37 F. Ca rl sbad Boulevard-Street Cross Section 6 From Carlsbad Boulevard west to the ocean the Village has a different feel. This part of the Village is primarily tourism- oriented with numerous hotels, short-term rentals, and beach access points. Carlsbad Boulevard in its current design can, in places, be a barrier to pedestrian movement. The boulevard could better link the Village to its beachfront. Slowing speeds and rebalancing the distribution of space within the right-of- way will help people think differently about the function of t he boulevard and help to "bridge the gap" between the beach and the Village. The pedestrian scrambles installed along Carlsbad Boulevard at Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue have seen a 50% increase in pedestrians when people were prioritized. If the design of Carlsbad Boulevard and the other streets to the west were to shift how people are prioritized, the way people (both residents and tourists) think about this part of Carlsbad Village will also shift. The typical street section, adjacent use, and character of Carlsbad Boulevard is different north and south of Carlsbad Village Drive and will require tailored approaches to rebalance the street's design to enhance the movement of pedestrians and cyclists. Figures 4-18 and 4-19 show existing and proposed conditions for Carlsbad Boulevard between Christiansen and Beech avenues. In general, proposed conditions are designed to match Carlsbad Boulevard improvements already completed from Beech Avenue north to Mountain View Drive in the vicinity of Army and Navy Academy. Existing conditions provide a 106-foot right of way with eighty-five feet of roadway area as measured from curb to curb. Two southbound and two northbound vehicle travel lanes are provided with eight-foot bicycle lanes and eight- foot parking lanes provided on each side. Travel lanes are divided with a combined thirteen-foot median and turn lane. A ten-foot sidewalk is located along the eastern parkway and a five-foot sidewalk and six-foot planter is located along the western parkway. @ Existing Condition 106' A Figure 4-18, Carlsbad Boulevard: Existing Conditions Section (Christiansen Avenue to Beech Avenue) A -,n Proposed conditions north of Christiansen Avenue would enhance bicycle facilities by providing a buffered bicycle lane for both northbound and southbound conditions, within the same overall right-of-way width. Buffers would be added to each side of the eight-foot bicycle lane~ four-foot buffer adjacent to the parking lane and a five-foot buffer adjacent ~ to the vehicular travel lane). Vehicle lanes are reduced to one travel lane in each direction to accommodate the bicycle lane enhancements. The median/turn lane, parking lane and parkway conditions would remain the same. Due to existing traffic volumes and future visioning that may occur for parts of Carlsbad Boulevard primarily south of the Village, the Master Plan proposes no additional recommendations for Carlsbad Boulevard south of Christiansen Way. MASTER PLAN @ Proposed Condition •' ,.,.. Figure 4-19, Carlsbad Boulevard: Proposed Conditions (Christiansen Avenue to Beech Avenue) JANUARY 2018 4-39 Page: 41 -"'" Number: 1 Author. pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 9:49:26 PM -08'00' The 5 foot buffer should be adjacent to the parking lane to keep cyclists clear of the dooring hazard {el(cept for Coivettes and other low 2 door vehicles that open wider than 5'. The physics of being doored cause the cyclists handlebars to turn right while the cyclist is thrown to the left. This link to a video tised in the League of American Bicyclists Smart Cycling classes offered iri Oceanside and Carlsbad shows the results of simulated dooring with a crash test dummy: https:// video.search.yahoo.com/video/ play;_ylt=A2KLq!HgfntVQRoA.yMsnIIQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByN2RnbHFoBHNIYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZOaWQDBGdwb3MDMw--?p=Crash + Test+ Dummy+On + Bike+ Hitting +a+Car+ Door&vid =b901391a6fe9e389d151923dba570778&turl =http%3A%2F% 2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.wJb90LPnOSIFURqz6tjSOA%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D225%26w%3D300%26c%307%26rs% 3D1&rurl=https%:3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBJKbXH2cAyI&tit=What+Happens+When+You+Open+a+Car +Door+ln+Front+Of+A+Bicyde% · 3F&c=2&h=22S&w=300&1=25&sigr=llbitincb&sigt=llsmmq376&sigi=12k3j9are&age=l278394095&fr2=p%3As%2Cv% 3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b 0 Nurnber: 2 Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/27/2018 9:33:03 PM -08'00' G. Beach Area Streets The western-most portion of the Village located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the ocean is a highly popular area for beachgoers to park and access the beach due to numerous beach access points in this area along Ocean Street. The beach area also serves as an important transition between Carlsbad's coastline and the Village. However, public street improvements in this area are incomplete. Further1 it can be difficult to determine if parking spaces along streets are public or private. Two of the Village's major streets, Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue, terminate in the beach area at Ocean Street. For the most part, streets west of Carlsbad Boulevard (Pacific Avenue, Cypress Avenue, Beech Avenue, Christiansen Avenue, and Oak Avenue) that provide access to Ocean Street from Carlsbad Boulevard, as well as Garfield Street should all be maintained with two-way traffic and should be enhanced to maximize pedestrian and bike safety and to maximize on-street parking. As portions of most of these streets are within the boundaries of the Master Plan, plan- recommended improvements should simply extend to those short portions outside the Master Plan area. In general, missing sidewalks1 curb, gutter and edge improvements, parking lanes (both sides of street), et cetera, should be improved and constructed. Existing on-street parking should be maintained and increased wherever possible. As many of these streets are now identified as "Alternative Design Streets'' by the city, their designation as such should be removed to enable full street improvements. Further, the city should reclaim the right-of-way on streets west of Carlsbad Boulevard in all areas where it appears to have been privatized and return it back to public uses for residents and visitors. This could include on-street parking, sidewalks, bicycle paths, landscaping, and car travel lanes. H. BarrioNillage Transition Roosevelt and Madison streets traverse nearly the entire north-south length of the Village and Barrio. Centrally located, they are the primary routes between the two neighborhoods. For the one block between Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue, both streets feature minor enhancements, in the form of paved decorative medians and crosswalks and small landscaped islands and curb extensions ("bulb-outs"), which welcome motorists, calm traffic, and improve walking. The enhancements are unique to the Village and Barrio. Similar improvements to Roosevelt and Madison Streets south of Carlsbad Village Drive, along the one block stretch to OakAvenue, could serve to attractively demarcate the transition from the Village to the Barrio. They should also help facilitate pedestrian street crossings between businesses as well as slow vehicles and can serve as Barrjo entryway statements with appropriate signs and /or public art. 4-40 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO I. Tyler Street-Street Cross Section 7 Tyler Street provides north-south mobility through the central portion of the Master Plan area. Existing conditions provide a forty-foot right of way with thirty feet of roadway area as measured from curb to curb. Two-way traffic is accommodated with eleven-foot travel lanes and an eight-foot parallel parking lane is provided along the east side of the street. Parkway conditions are characterized by a five-foot planter along the west side and a five-foot sidewalk along the east side. Figures 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, and 4-23 show existing and proposed conditions. Three options are provided for future conditions. MASTER PLAN 0 Existing Condition . 5' PLANTER SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 11' 11' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 30' CUR6TOCUR6 40' RIGHT-Of..WAY Figure 4-20, Tyler Street: Existing Conditions Section 141\ll 14RV ?01A 5' SIDEWALK /LJl1 Option A illustrates a concept which views the street as a shared space, or uwoonerf;' rather than just a channel for vehicular mobility. With this concept, two-way traffic and parallel parking would continue to be accommodated. However, t he street would be single continuous level (no curbs). Decorative paving or colored concrete would be used throughout the right of way and different areas of travel lanes would be delineated through the use of paving and/or color. Option B would improve bicycle mobility by providing northbound and southbound bicycle lanes through removal of one travel lane. The resulting configuration would provide one northbound travel lane. A two-foot buffer would be located between the southbound bicycle lane and traffic lane. The parallel parking lane would be reduced from eight feet to seven feet in width. Option C would continue to accommodate two-way traffic with two lanes reduced in width to ten feet each and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The eight- foot parallel p~rking lane would be retained; however, the location would be moved from the east side to the west side of t he street. Considering the variety of uses in this area, mountable curbs would accommodate maneuvering and accessibility for a greater range of vehicles. (j) Proposed Condition Option A i APPROX. Jt----"=="----.J, TRA\/cLWAY RIGHT-Of-WAY Figure 4-21, Tyler Street: Proposed Conditions A 442 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO 0 Proposed Condition Option B PLANTER NORTl-iBOUND 32' CUR!llOCUR8 4(1 RlGHT-OF-WAY SIDEWALi( Figure4-22, Tyler Street:~osed Conditions 8 Qr MAc;.TFQPI AN 0 Proposed Condition Option C SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 5' r SIOEWAU( CURB 10 CUl!8 RIGHl-Of.WAY -i -.• _,, J I I I I ., lHJ1 -~-I -nmt ·i-,1 -, ' - \:·IDI _ .J I I ., - ',,·1·1--. . ,_ ~ I I - Figure 4-23, Tyler Street: Proposed Conditions C t'age: '+:> Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 9:56:28 PM -08'00' Figure 4-22: This is an unsafe door zone bike lane. Perhaps this could include a 3 ' right side buffer? Number: 2 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 9:57;36 PM -08'00' Figure 4-23: Would the design speed with horizontal or vertical displacement traffic calming be 15 MPH so cyclists would feel comfortable riding in the center of the effective lanes? J. Roosevelt Street (and streets with less than 48' between curbs) For Barrio streets where the width does not accommodate the enhanced bikeway configuration, the placement of bu I bouts and street trees can create a slower and much more comfortable and aesthetically pleasing street character. J. Harding Street (and streets with more than 48' between curbs)-Street Cross Section 8 Some of the streets in the Barrio, such as Harding Street, already have on street parking and bicycle lanes, but still over half of the right-of-way is given to the movement of cars. A proposed reallocation of pavement would relocate the bike lane to outside the lane of parking while also narrowing the travel lanes to create a protected enhanced bike lane for cyclists. In addition, new tree cover can be added to the neighborhood by placing trees occasionally within the designated parking area to visually narrow the street and provide much needed shade for pedestrians and cyclists. Figures 4-24, 4-25, and 4-26 show existing and proposed conditions. Existing conditions provide an eighty-foot right of way with fifty-six feet of roadway area as measured from curb to curb. One southbound travel lane and one northbound travel lane are each flanked by a six-foot bicycle lane and eight- feet of parallel parking. The westside parkway is characterized by a four-foot planter and an eight-foot sidewalk. The eastside parkway is characterized by a six-foot planter and six-foot sidewalk. Proposed condition5 are illustrated for two locations along Harding Street, as figures 4-2, 4-11, and 4-12 indicate. Both street sections would provide for enhanced bicycle facilities and additional street trees and landscaping. Sidewalk, planter and parking widths would be retained, while travel lane widths would be reduced to accommodate the improvements. For the location along Pine Avenue Park, a two-way cycle track would be provided along the western side of the street with a new four-foot planter separating the cycle track from vehicular traffic. Travel lanes would be reduced from fourteen feet to twelve feet under this scenario. For the l.ocation north of Pine Avenue, two one-way cycle tracks would be provided, one on each side of the street. New four- foot planters would separate the cycle track lanes from vehicular traffic. Travel lanes are reduced from fourteen feet to ten feet under this scenario. 4-44 @ Existing Condition /,' B11(6 LANE SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 14' lRAVELLANS lllAVEl LANE 56' CURS TO CURB Btt RIGHT-Of.WAY 6*..(J'' 8' BIKE PARKING LANE: Figure 4-24, Harding Street: Existing Conditions Section PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Number. l Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 10:20:07 PM -08'00' The existing condition could be Improved for cyclists by narrowing the travel lanes to 10' and the parking lanes to 7' and using the extra S' per side to add a S' buffer against the parked cars. Traffic calming measures such as bulb outs, mid-block raised crosswalks, traffic circles or compact roundabouts could reduce speeds on the straight and wide auto centric road while enhancing safety for all road users. Perhaps a robust traffic calming program should be proposed before constructing expensive cycle tracks that may increase car-bike crashes, be expensive to maintain and keep clean and still allow cyclists to be able to choose the travel lanes as an option. @ Proposed Condition Option A PINE AVENUE PARK 12' 12' 8' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PARKING 40' CURB TO CURB 00 RIGHT-OF-WAY Figure 4-25, Harding Street: Proposed Conditions A (along Pine Avenue Park) MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-45 4-46 @ Proposed Condition Option B PINE AVENUE PARK WAY I~= ~ 36' CURB TO CURB f![J RIGHT-OF-WAY Figure 4-26, Harding Street: Proposed Conditions B (North of Pine Avenue) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO The "before" and "after" exhibits below (Figure 4-27) show how Harding Street in the vicinity of Pine Avenue Park could be transformed by proposed improvements and conceptual new building construction. Looking north on the street from a point near Chestnut Avenue (see Section 8A on Figure 4-2), the after image depicts a two-way cycle track along Pine Avenue Park (see Figure 4-25) separated from the relocated parking lane by a landscaped planter. The after image also conceptually illustrates a new building on the east side of the street; this building, conforming to the standards and guidelines of Master Plan Chapter 2, is provided solely to depict how new construction could appear along Harding Street. Figure 4-27, Harding Street Before and After (Conceptual view at Pine Avenue Park, looking north and corresponding with Figure 4-11) Page:49 =-Number: 1 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 2:00:48 PM -08'00' All of the Cycle Track proposals show the relatively narrow 6 ft opposing lanes between intersections to "protect" cyclists from same direction overtaking motorists wtiich almost never happens in an urban environment with 25 MPH traffic. None of these proposed concepts show how the Cycle Tracks cross intersections and driveways where over 90% of car-bike crashes occur. Please show how all ofthese separated facilities will cross every driveway and intersection where they are proposed. Also, since half of all bicyclists wifl be travelling the wrong way, please show how they can safely enter and exit these facilities to cross the street to ride on the correct side of the streets. Every one of these segregated facilities are optional by law in California. Numl:!er: 2 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 10:06:34 PM -08'00' A two way cycle track between Grand and Where Harding turns west would cross at least 16 driveways and an additional 9 Intersections (Reference: Google Earth Views) See earlier comments on the hazards to cycllsts at these locations. K. Chestnut Avenue Chestnut Avenue provides an important east-west connection between neighborhoods on both sides of 1-5. It also links two city parks, Holiday Park just east of the freeway and Pine Avenue Park along Harding Street. Its east-west connectivity and central Barrio location make Chestnut Avenue a logical and desirable location for a railroad crossing, particularly for bicyclists and pedestrians. When such a crossing is realized, Chestnut Avenue will directly connect to the beach and make important Barrio features, such as Pihe Avenue Park, the community center, community garden, and the senior center, more accessible to residents west of the railroad tracks. Because of its connectivity, central location, and potential for a crossing at the railroad, Chestnut Avenue is a recommended ubicycle boulevard''. On-street bicycle boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume managemeht measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets. M. Other Barrio Streets Streets in the Barrio are wider than appropriate for neighborhood streets, allowing drivers to feel comfortable speeding. Such vehicle speeds reinforce the need to visually narrow the streets and reallocate pavement to serve more users and create more visual friction. As a result, this should encourage slower speeds that are more in context with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Slower travel speeds provide a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists, who presently can feel uncomfortable traveling along or crossing Barrio streets. A reallocation of pavement on the streets in the Barrio allows for elements such as protected bike lanes and on-street parking while affording an opportunity for Increased shade and an overall improved streetscape. Streets within the Barrio should be enhanced for pedestrian and bicycle safety and travel, yet at the same time maintain traffic flow. Improvements to stteets in the Barrio should include sidewalks of a five-foot minimum width, and additional shade in the form of more street trees either within the existing planting strips or within new tree wells created occasionally between parking spaces. The addition of street trees to Roosevelt and Madison Streets, key roadways serving both the Village and Barrio, is a priority. Street improvements should also include a reallocation of paved street area to increase bicycle facilities, pedestrian lighting, and improved intersections. Recommendations for non-intersection improvements in the Barrio, such as street trees, lighting, and bicycle paths, are addressed elsewhere in this chapter. "ao 4.3.12 Intersection Design The street intersections in the Village and Barrio provide additional opportunities for mobility enhancements as street corridor improvement options are developed. Since some of the street improvements within the Village and Barrio have multiple improvement options offered in this chapter, the selected intersection treatment will need to correspond to the selected proposed option. The following intersection types can be considered to address the preferred street mobility improvements. A. Typical Intersections Each typical intersection design provides improvements to a range of mobilities by providing bulbouts at the pedestrian crossings. The bu I bouts reduce the time pedestrians are exposed to traffic by reducing the dfstance from corner to corner. The bulbouts also provide improved visibility for both pedestrians and drivers when pedestrians are waiting to cross the street. Enhanced crosswalk striping and refuge islands also increase visibility and provide additional visual cues at intersections. Bicycle improvements for each typical intersection include Class II Bike Lane striping and green lane paint designation at street intersections for increased visibility. Other bicycle improvements occur with options that include Class IV Bike Lanes which address both striped buffers or landscaped buffers between parked vehicles or travel lanes. Each intersection and connecting street will correspond with selected mobility improvement option. Vehicle lane width reduction and in some cases travel lane removal are recommended changes within the Village and Barrio street corridors. These road diet improvements provide different ways to address vehicular circulation and can include traffic circles and or roundabouts at intersections. The traffic circle treatment will be possible at several locations within the Barrio and is dependent on the preferred mobility treatment options along each street corridor. ; Village intersection MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-49 lntersectionTypeA ~ [Qf1 This treatment occurs where both Class II Bike Lanes are added to the street corridor and parallel parking allows for corner bulbouts to occur. Some intersections may include cross streets withlfilike boulevards or narrower street rights- of-way. This exhibit also shows conditions where median refuge islands may occur. Bui bout crossings can include both single ramps or double ramps depending on the parkways and sidewalk widths. ~ Pedestrian Refuge Island Curb Ramp with Additional Striping At Corner Parallel Parking Buffered Bike Lane ~ Curb Ramps Figure 4-28, Buffered Bike Lane and On-Street Parallel Parking with BLilbouts at the Intersection 4-50 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Pag e:52 Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 3:17:41 PM -08'00' Would this 4 way stop intersection design be an inferior choice compared to a roundabout which would increase safety for all road users (by more than 90% for fatalities, 76% for injuries and 35% for all crashes per US DOT Publication FHWA-RD-00-067)? If the cost of a roundabout is prohibitive, would a much Jess expensive traffic circle be the preferred intersection type here? This intersection type does not meet the criteria for traffic calming for straight thru motor vehicles as it does not provlde any vertical or horizontal displacement "" Number: 2 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 4:11:47 PM -08'00' The center median, which is apparently to provide for mid block left turns, and as a refuge for motorists turning left from mid block alleys and driveways, is inherently dangerous compared to right in-right-out turns without the two way driveable median. Traffic circles or roundabouts provide a safer location for drivers to make U-tums when desired. Given the many safety and legal issues associated with this type of intersection, should it be listed at the end of this section, corrected to comply with the MUTCD and 0/C, and used as a last resort? Ef]Number: 3 Author: pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 4:12:37 PM -08'00' -Number: 4 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 4:16:14 PM -08'00' Bike boulevards generally encourage cycling by removing stop signs at intersections. Should the presence of the 4 way stop be another reason to consider this intersection type as inferior to traffic circles or roundabouts? ,, Number: S Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 2:24:24 PM -08'00' Placing the Buffer of a mandatory use Class 2 Bike lane on the left side with parallel parked cars places cyclists well within the "door zone·. Most cars and truck doors will open past the middle of a 5' bike lane and some (e.g. Corvette) doors will open past the left edge of a 5' bike lane. The physics of being "doored" always turns the handlebars and front wheel of the bike to the right. which causes the cyclist to fall to the left into the traffic lane where potentially serious or fatal collisions with passing motor vehicles can, and do, occur. For this reason alone, shouldn't City policy be to uniformly place buffers on the right if parking is permitted and only on the left if there is enough room for both side buffers as shown in Figure 4-19? ~ Number: 6 Author. pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 10:24:30 PM -08'00' Per the Callfornia Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section xxxxx,Class 2 Bike lanes must end 100 to 200 feet before and interse.ctions where motor vehicles may make a right turn. This allows cyclists to merge left if they are going straght to avoid being "right hooked' buy motorists making an illegal right tum for not making the turn from the right edge of the roadway per 0/C 22100. In addition, motorists, including police officers, will not be expecting experienced cyclists who wish to make a legal left turn leave the bike lane to approach the intersection as close to the pedestrian refuge island as practicable per 0/C 22100. Intersection Type B ig1 The treatment for intersection Type B occurs where Class IV~ike Lanes or cycle tracks are proposed. The bulbouts need to account for the parallel parking,@:riped or landscape buffered area, and the bike lane approach to the intersection. Each intersection and street corridor will need to be addressed individually to accurately account for the selected bicycle facility treatment along each corridor. [Q¥J Bulbout with One Curb Ramp with Additional Striping At Corner Landscape Buffer Between Parallel Parking and§ike Lane triped Bike Buffer Betwee Parallel Parkin and~ike Lane Figure 4-29, 7 otected Bike Lane and Cycle track, On-Street Parallel Parking and Bulbouts at the Intersection [Q1ru ·-·--·""'--·. -· r a~c;. JJ ~ Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 4:41:13 PM -08'00' All of the previously mentioned safety issues for Type A intersections remain with the exception of the dooring issue for cyclists and the two way left turn lane for motorists. However, the mid-block leading to these intersection types still appears to allow left entries and exits to driveways and alleys. Cyclists in the cycle tracks will be even less visible to left turning motorists mid-block and will still be susceptible to right hooks. at each of the intersection legs. By law, cydfsts are not required to use any Class 4 facility and may use the full traffic lane if the travel lane is too narrow to share side by side. Since many people do not know this, should Sharrows and R4-11 "'Bikes' May Use Full Lane" signs be used here to educate cyclists and motorists? tI]Number. 2 IT)Number: 3 Author: pete Author. pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 4:42:06 PM -08'00' Subject Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 4:54:31 PM -08'00' Number: 4 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 5:14:36 PM -08'00' Should the landscaped or striped buffered area be at least 5 ft wide to prevent "dooring" of cyclists in the cycle track? Note that all drivers and passengers Will need to cross the cycle track to reach the sidewalks. Both pedestrians and cyclists tend to be less attentive when they are not in the direct path of vehicular traffic. Should any use of this type of bike facility include a robust education campaign for the general public, law enforcement/emergency services personnel and NCTD bus drivers? League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructors can, and have, provided safety training such as this at required safety meetings for bus drivers and at a shift turnover for Oceanside motorcycle officers. iIJNumber:5 !]Number: 6 !!]Number: 7 Author: pete Author, pete Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 4:42:26 PM -08'00' Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 4:42:20 PM -08'00' Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 4:41:34 PM -08'00' _ Number. 8 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 4:54:26 PM -08'00' Usage of the term "Bike Lane" {especially capitalized) blurs the distinction between the mandatory Class 2 Bike Lanes and the optional Class 4 cycle tracks. Use of the term "Protected" in conjunction with this type of facility is misleading as it is no more protected at intersections where about 90% of all car-bike crashes occur {references on request). Intersection Typem IO~ There are several intersections within the Barrio that could include traffic circles or roundabouts depending on the individual street corridor mobility improvements. This intersection type will include a mountable curb with mountable paved median center to accommodate larger vehicles and fire trucks. The center of the circle can include landscaping or a place for public art. Improved pedestrian crossing stripiim, bulbouts, and refuge islands are recommended to enhance visibility and assist traffic calming. This intersection~ould also address each bicycle facility,!i bicyclists can ride through the circle with traffic. Each intersection and traffic circle geometry will need to be designed according to the selected street corridor mobility treatment. Roundabout with--~ Mountable Curb and Center Landscape Area Bulbout Crosswalks Away------l..ii.:::I\:::;:=~ from Roundabout for Better Pedestrian Visibility Parallel Parking Landscape Island or Striping Yield Markings Figure 4-30, Bike Lane and On-Street Parallel Parking with Bulbouts and a 8 affic Circle at the Intersection ~ 4-52 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Pag e: ::>4 [!]Number: 1 Author. pete S-ubject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 5:45;23 PM -08'00' Number: 2 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 5:50:50 PM ·08'00' After corrections to allow for safe entries and exits into the roundabout, this will be the safest of all the intersection types as well as the most effident in tenns of capacity, traffic calming and noise levels.Should this be the default Type A intersection and the current Type A relegated to the "last resort" Type C designation? 1.f]Number: 3 ITJNumber:4 Author: pete Author: pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 S:25:57 PM -08'00' Subject; Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 5:18:48 PM -08'00' ·~ Number: 5 Author. pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 5:25:32 PM -08'00' The Class 2 mandatory Bike Lanes shown here are entirely in the "door zone". If sufficient road width exists, should a minimum 3' buffer be the standard design between the bike lane and the parking lane? If there is no room for a safety buffer, should the bike lane be eliminated in favor of Sharrows and R4-11 signs? -Number: 6 Author. pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 5:42:21 PM -08'00' This cyclist is in the proper and safest position to ride through the circle wrth traffic but has no guidance or training to do so. Should a robust education campaign be developed with videos to show how cyclists should control the space around them by merging early into the middle of the traffic lane? -Number: 7 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note . Date: 02/20/2018 5:44:40 PM -08'00' All legs of this intersection show cyclfsts being directed to enter the roundabout on the extreme right_ side of the intersection where they are most-susceptible to right hooks by drivers to their left who wish to turn right before the intended exit of the cyclist. This is why all roundabouts in Queensland, Austrailia, and the newest San Diego County roundabout in Del Mar direct cyclists with Sharrows to the center of the lanes both going in and leaving the roundabout. Shouldn't this be the standard design marking for any roundabout in Carlsbad? For those cyclists who are uncomfortable with cotitrolting the space around them in the roundabout, should there be ramps the dfrect them up onto the sidewalk along with signage or paint that directs them to dismount for their own and for pedestrian safety? ;:f]Number: 8 Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 5:51:11 PM -08'00' Number: 9 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 5:53:18 PM -08'00' This Figure depicts a Roundabout. Should another Figure be provided with a description ofa less expensive Traffic Circle? B. Barrio Intersections Recommendations for improved Barrio intersections fall into multiple categories. These include: Reconfigure the intersection of Roosevelt Street and Walnut Avenue into a "shared space'~ Shared space intersections enable pedestrians and cars to ''share"the right of way and are only recommended where such a mix is appropriate. Expansion of the shared space coni;:ept could extend beyond the intersection of the two streets east to the alley on Walnut Avenue, Such an expansion could provide a festival street at a key intersection of the Barrio. Install neighborhood traffic calming treatments such as neighborhood traffic circles. These could be added Without the need to relocate any street infrastructure and reti')in access to manholes currently located at the center of these intersections. These intersections can also be utilized as an opportunity to increase local public art in the community. In co.ordination with the neighborhood traffic calming treatments, add bulb-outs at intersections to decrease the pedestrian crossing distance and add visual friction to slow motorists. • lilse all-way stops only if traffic calming treatments are infeasible or too costly. [Qf1 Add crosswalks as needed wherever intersection improvements are installed. Suggestions for where each of these traffic calming treatments should be located throughout the Barrio are illustrated in Figure 4-31. C. Neighborhood Traffic Circles The neighborhood traffic circles recommended throughout the Barrio can be used to discourage speeding and improve safety in a way that fits a residential neighborhood setting. Additionally, they can be used as a place for civic art or decorated intersections by adding small monuments, plants, flowers, fountains or other features that fit the local character. Careful attention needs to be given to not over-design these into circles that are large enough to function as full roundabouts. A good example of a neighborhood traffic circle exists on Chestnut Avenue in the Barrio, between Pine Avenue Park and Chase Field. Accordingly, neighborhood traffic circles generally differ from modern roundabouts in a few key details: A lack of large splitter islands at intersection approaches Small size Crosswalks that do not offset from the natural path of pedestrian travel No need for expanded right-of-way A local versus major street setting Local traffic circulates counter-clockwise around a traffic circle, but due to lower traffic volumes, larger vehicles are occasionally allowed left turns without the need to circulate. The design of any traffic circle will need to take into consideration the specific access requirements of large vehicles as well as emergency response vehicles. MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-53 , o~c . ..J..J QJNumber: 1 Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 5:54:24 PM -08'00' Number: 2 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 10:29:48 PM -08'00' Does this statement indicate that Intersection Types A & C should be reversed as A implies a higher priority than C or B? 4-54 I \rf'\i LJ_J l PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:56 _ Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 6:02:51 PM -08'00' This is a traffic circle, right? IT)Number: 2 Author: pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 5:59:30 PM -08'00' 4.4 Enhance the Bicycle Network Carlsbad provides an excellent setting in which to bicycle. The weather, active resident lifestyle, beach access, jp~ and historic village center, provide numerous benefits for those who choose to travel or~create by bike. Bicyc infrastructure along streets strengthens the connectivity within a walkable neighborhood and can be implemented in a variety of ways along streets, depending on the character and the context the surrounding place. The Master Plan proposes to build on the City's past investments in cycling by closing key gaps in the network and by further enhancing existing bikeway facilities. Strategies include enriching the network with new low-stress bikeways to further connect numerous destinations in the Village, Barrio, as well as, surrounding neighborhoods and bicycle-friendly enhancements at key intersections. As the city moves forward with making.changes and improvements to current bicycle infrastructure, it will be cautious to put into place new infrastruct1:1re before removing any old infrastructure so that bicyclists have safe routes to ride throughout the implementation process of the Village and Barrio Master Plan. In addition, design and facilities for all types of riders will be considered. Existing and proposed bicycle network facilities are illustrated in Figure 4-32, Bicycle Facilities, and described as defined by Caltrans. Street design recommendations contained in Section 4.3 Create Livable Streets incorporate bicycle facility recommendations in context with other right-of-way improvements. Descriptions of specific improvements and types of bicycle facilities are provided below. CLASS I BIKE PATH CLASS II BIKE LANE CLASS IV CYCLE TRACK M4CTCQ QI l\lU I O~C: • ..J I ,. Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 6:05:55 PM -08'00' Should this term be replaced with "use a bicyde for recreatlon or physical fitness"? '.!!Number: 2 Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 6:04:00 PM -08'00' .. Number: 3 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 6:37:30 PM -08'00' Since most, if not all., Class m facilities lack sufficient travel lane width for a Class Il Bike Lane, they are too narrow to safely share side by side. with a passing motorist. Thus, per the CVC 21202.a.(3), cyclists may use the full lane as provided for by sharrows and/or R4-11 signs, even if neither of those markings/signs are present In the case of thls illustration, should the sign be enlarged to be an R4-11? And should the cyclists be shown riding slde by side in the center of the lane over the sharrow? This would also dispel the common misconception that the CVC requires cyclists to ride single fife. ,,, Number: 4 Author: pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 6:43:14 PM -08'00' This illustration highlights the separate sidewalk, which draws attention away from the cycle track and especially the shadowy cyclist who nearly disappears as a result of being nearly the same color as asphalt While many cyclists do ride this way, it is not considered safe by any cycling advocates or education programs. Can this be fixed? 4-56 Pacific O c ea n -Class I: Multi-Use Path, Existing -Class II: Bike Lane, Existing · • • Class II: Bike Lane,. Proposed Class JII: Bike Route, Existing • Class Ill: Bike Route, Proposed • • Class IV: Cycle Track, Proposed • • Bicycle Boulevard, Proposed -·-·-Coastal Zone Boundary ! I 1 JJJ.JJ:::l t Figure 4-32, Bicycle Facilities 0 250 500 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:58 Number. 1 Author. pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 6:13:04 PM -08'00' Laguna Drive is an existing Class 3 Bike Route with Sharrows. 4.4.1 Class I Paths Class I bikeways, also known as bike paths or shared-use paths, are facilities with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians, away from the roadway and with cross flows by motor traffic minimized. Some systems provide separate pedestrian facilities. Class I facilities support both recreational and commuting opportunities. Common applications include along rivers, shorelines, canals, utility rights-of-way, railroad rights-of-way, within school campuses, or within and between parks. 4.4.2 Class II Lanes Class II bikeways are bike lanes established along streets and are defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities, typically striped adjacent to motor traffic travelling in the same direction. Contraflow bike lanes can be provided on one-way streets for bicyclists travelling in the opposite direction. A buffered bike lane provides greater separation from an adjacent traffic lane and/or between the bike lane and on-street parking by using chevron or diagonal markings. Greater separation can be especially useful on streets with higher motor traffic speeds or volumes. 4.4.3 Class Ill Routes Class Ill bikeways, or bike routes, designate a preferred route for bicyclists on streets shared with motor traffic not served by dedicated bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway network. Bike routes are generally not appropriate for roadways with higher motor traffic speeds or volumes. Bike routes are established by placing bike route signs and optional shared roadway markings (sharrow) along roadways. A liberal application of sharrows throughout the Village and Barrio neighborhoods will be a pp lied in order to emphasize the notion that these neighborhoods are bicycle friendly. On some busier routes, sharrows can receive a green or black'backing'to make them stand out on the road more. Sharrows can also be painted in a larger size so that they take up more of the road to make them stand out more. For example, if sharrows are installed on Carlsbad Village Drive after cycle tracks are installed on Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue, these should include a green treatment in order to make them stand out more. Shared routes may be used more by confident riders who prefer not to ride on cycle tracks that tend to cater to more timid and slower riders. 4.4.4 Bicycle Boulevard A Bicycle Boulevard is a shared roadway intended to prioritize bicycle travel for people of all ages and abilities. Bicycle Boulevards are typically sited on streets without large truck or transit vehicles, and where traffic volumes and speeds are already low, or can be further reduced through traffic calming. MASTER PLAN ·-.. , ... -~----- fJage: :,~ Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/201810:34:15 PM -08'00' Bicycle Boulevards should be through streets for cyclists with no or minimal stop signs and maximum use of traffic calming 4.4.5 Cycle Track A Class IV separated bikeway, often referred to as a cycle track or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separatron, flexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways can provide for one-way or two- way travel. By providing physical separation from motor traffic, Class IV bikeways can reduce the level of stress, improve comfort for more types of bicyclists, and contribute to an increase in bicycle volumes and mode share. One example of a two-way Class IV path in North County would be the strip of the Coastal Rail Trail that extends between Carlsbad and · Oceanside along the Coast Highway. Both one-way and two-way cycle tracks can be installed as appropriate in order to create more accessible bikeways. Specifically, cyc!e tracks should be implemented on Harding Street, Oak A~Hf, and Grand Avenue in order to provide safe. and accessible places for interested but concerned bicyclists to ride. lSdf 4.4.6 Creating Safer Intersections In@ ®he majority of bicycle-motorist collisions occur at intersections~rking them as an important design consideration in creating bicycle infrastructure. SANDAG's 2010 Regional Bike Plan outlines recommendations for installing Bike Boxes (see pages 100-101 ), which allow cyclists to position in front of motorists at red lights so they have a head start before motorists. Bicycle Signal prioritization may be used in conjunction with Bike Boxes so that cyclists begin to travel through intersections before motorists, allowing them to get safely out of the way before motorists proceed. This puts bicyclists in a more comfortable position from which to make a left-hand turn at an intersection. Due to the popularity of the routes at the juncture of Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard to cyclists, and the current lack of clear bikeways at the intersection bicycle boxes on all four approaches should be implemented. This will be particularly useful at this intersection as both cyclists and motorists may be turning right or left, or heading straight through the intersection. Bicycle boxes should include green treatments. Green treatments inside of Class II Bike Lanes or Class IV Cycle Tracks near intersections are also useful ways to remind motorists to check for bicycles before making right or left turns through intersections. Not only should major intersections in the Barrio and Village be considered for treatments, but also those that serve to connect these neighborhoods to adjacent areas, such as Holiday Park and residential areas east of 1-5. The city should add green treatments and bike symbols at intersections where Class II bike lanes become dashed lines that double as right-turn lanes for motorists. These types of intersections increase the opportunity for bicyclist-motorist collisions as they create a shared space for these two types of vehicles at locations where bicyclists already face an increased risk of motor vehicle collisions. Class II Bike Lanes should receive green treatments and bike symbols at intersections in order to raise motorists' awareness that bicyclists are also using these spaces. 4-58 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:60 _ Number: 1 Author. pete Subject Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 6:23:45 PM -08'00' Should a statement to state that cyclists use of a Class IV faci lity is optional for cyclists, who may prefer to use the adjacent roadway? Without this consistent discussion of both Class I and Class N, the general public may not be aware of this legal distinction. Road rage and/or police citations may result Number. 2 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 6:47:48 PM -08'00' About 90%1 Should this statement be emphasized to "vast" or simply say that "About 90%of...at driveways, alleys and intersections," ~Number.3 Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 6:44:16 PM -08'00' 4.4.7 Improving Connectivity across the 1-5 Connecting the Barrio and Village to inland neighborhoods presents a particular challenge in regards to bicycle and pedestrian accessibility due to the presence of the 1-5, which only allows for three entry points into these neighborhoods from inland areas. At present, crossings exist at Carlsbad Village Drive, Chestnut Avenue, and Tamarack Avenue. A fourth crossing point proposed at Grand Avenue and the 1-5, could create another low-stress crossing point for bicyclists and pedestrians. Moreover, the cycle track that should be implemented on Grand Avenue should extend to this crossing, and potentially continue east, to provide a safe gateway for bicycle riders through the Village. Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue both have freeway on-and off-ramps that are intimidating to cyclists. Despite proposed Class II Bike lanes being implemented on these roads, these streets may still be intimidating to interested, but concerned riders. Therefore, the Grand Avenue cycle track a·nct the bicycle boulevard on Chestnut Avenue are fundamental safe access routes for bicyclists to cross the 1-5 freeway into the Village and Barrio and beyond to Carlsbad's beaches. 4.4.8 Chestnut Avenue: Bicycle Boulevard Chestnut Avenue should become a bicycle boulevard. At present, Chestnut Avenue is the calmest of the entry points into the Village and Barrio as it does not have any freeway on-and off-ramps and has a slower posted speed than both Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive. This marks Chestnut Avenue as well-suited to becoming a major bicycle corridor. Currently, Chestnut Avenue also provides a third entry point onto the Class I portion of the Coastal Rail Trail. Therefore, Chestnut Avenue is integral to providing bicycle connectivity throughout the Village and Barrio. Chestnut Avenue could provide an invaluable route to Jefferson Elementary (through its connection to Harding Street, which provides a route to the school) and the city should consider ways to make Chestnut even friendlier to cyclists to shield them more from motorists. Bulb outs could be added to the intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Harding Street in order to extend these traffic calming measures. These could be extended to the Coastal Rail Trail in order to make Chestnut a continuous bicycle boulevard, with sharrows and bulb-outs or other traffic calming devices at intersections to increase bicyclist safety. Other ways to improve intersections could include green treatments and wayfinding signage. A pedestrian/bicyclist railroad crossing implemented on Chestnut Avenue will provide an opportunity to extend the bicycle boulevard westward to Carlsbad Boulevard and the beach. 4.4.9 1-5 Crossings at Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue Both Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue need to improve active transportation accessibility across the 1-5 Freeway on-and off-ramps. As proposed in the North Coast Corridor 1-5 Widening Public Works Plan one way to improve bicyclist access across these busy intersections is to extend Class II bike lanes. Green treatments in the bike lanes at the on-and off-ramps would also increase cyclist comfort and safety. Although the 1-5/TamarackAvenue interchange is outside the Master Plan area, signal prioritization at these junctures will also create a safer environment for cyclists entering and exiting the Village and Barrio. 4.4.10 Bicycle Parking Infrastructure The city has increased its supply of bicycle parking in the Village center, including numerous on-street bicycle parking racks that provide additional parking capacity for businesses and keep the sidewalk clear for people walking. However, bicyclists need more places to securely leave their bikes while enjoying a leisurely afternoon or running errands around these neighborhoods. Bike corrals (which are placed on city streets in the parking strip) can be installed at the end of blocks with Class II or Class IV Bikeways, or with bikeway intersections, in order to allow cyclists and motorists to better see oncoming traffic at intersections than they can if there is a car parked on the corner. Bike parking spots should be placed near popular destinations, parks and schools. 4.4.11 Safe Routes to,School Bikeway infrastructure should be designed to create safe, low-stress and accessible routes to schools throughout the BarrioNillage neighborhoods and those inland. Accessible routes to school create healthy habits and motivate a culture shift in Carlsbad that views transportation by bike as a normal routine, rather than an exception. Bicycle parking In the Barrio, the presence of Jefferson Elementary School provides a key opportunity to improve Carlsbad's Safe Routes to School effort by providing a separated cycle track that allows for parents and students to ride their bikes toward school in a non-intimidating and accessible environment. This cycle track, extending from Jefferson Street near the school to Magnolia Avenue, would connect to major bike thoroughfares, such as the cycle track recommended on Harding Street and the Bicycle Boulevard on Chestnut Avenue. Magnolia Avenue also could use improvements for where it connects to Jefferson, Madison, and Harding Streets so that children coming from northwest of the school have safe routes as well. This could take the form of Class II buffered bike lanes or Class II lanes with green treatments. Sharrows should also be implemented on Jefferson Street. 4-60 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT )-,16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO 4.4.12 Coastal Rail Trail Improvements The Coastal Rail Trail runs the length of the Master Plan area from the Carlsbad Boulevard roundabout at State Street south to Tamarack Avenue along the rail line. Along the rail corridor south of Oak Avenue, the trail exists as a Class I Bike path. Where it exits onto Oak Avenue and turns onto State Street, the Coastal Rail Trail becomes a Class Ill Bike Route and continues in this manner to near the roundabout. Improvements to the Coastal Rail Trail are recommended at the entry points to the Class I portion of the trail at Tamarack and Oak Avenues. At Tamarack Avenue, providing a crossing to enable bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the street is recommended. At Oak Avenue, enhancements are recommended ~o improve the transition from the Class I Trail to Oak Avenue. These improvements would include signs and sharrows to alert both motorists and bicyclists to each other's presence. Another area that needs bicycle infrastructure improvements is at the roundabout on the northern end of the City limits where State Street and Carlsbad Bou levard intersect. At this intersection a two-way cycle track, located on the west side of the road, begins and crosses the short span of the Coast Highway that joins Carlsbad to Oceanside across the Buena Vista Lagoon. At present, the cycle track is difficult for a cyclist to enter who is heading north along Carlsbad Boulevard or State Street. Here are several recommended changes to this intersection in order to improve rider accessibility to the cycle track. These include 1) lowering the curb so that it is mountable inside of the roundabout rather than at the pedestrian crosswalk, and 2) adding wayfinding signage, green treatments, and sharrows to help guide bicyclists throug h t he route. Directional paint markers should be used within the roundabout itself and should lead cyclists onto the sidewalk and then into the cycletrack. A green treatment indicating that a bike lane exists on the cycle track can also be helpful, demarcating an area for pedestrians and one for cyclists. As this sidewalk was intentionally designed to be wider than standard sidewalks in order to accommodate bicycles, there should be space enough for both a bicycle and pedestrian lane. Sharrows and directional markers along the roundabout will also help to alert drivers to the presence of bicyclists and make them aware that cyclists will be entering and exiting the cycle track in/near the roundabout. Finally, wayfinding signage can be used in conju~ction~painttreatments in orderto create a more navigable route, while also alerting drivers to the presence of bicyclists. [Qt Finally, as a long term visionary component of the Master Plan and one tied in with the lowering of the rail line below street level, relocation of the Coastal Rail Trail from State Street to the adjacent alley to the west is recommended. This relocation would provide a more desirable route for riders as it provides a great sense of continuity and is t herefore easier to navigate, and because it provides a calmer, more relaxed, and therefore safer riding environment. Presently, riders on State Street, particularly north of Carlsbad Village Drive must share limited road space with motorists and contend with cars backing out of angled parking spaces. State Street is also closed weekly due to the Farmers' Market. Relocation of the Coastal Rail Trail to the alley would require the crossing of Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue. Potentially, this could be facilitated by signals designed for bicyclists and pedestrians and timed to correspond with the timing of adjacent signals on both streets. ~ Routing of the Coastal Rail Trail along the alley would also require coordination with NCTD and would~ result in the loss of public parking, particularly along the west side of State Street between Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue. Coordination with NCTD would be necessary in light of the possibility of railroa d trenching, f uture redevelopment, and the determination of how the rerouted Coastal Rail Trail would connect with existing trail improvements in the vicinity of the roundabout and on into Oceanside. Page:63 _ Number. 1 Author. pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/27/2018 10:43:27 PM -08'00' Please provide figures or photos before and after to clarify these proposals. -Number. 2 Likely? !IJNumber: 3 Author. pete Author. pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 6:58:54 PM -08'00' Subject Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 6:58:37 PM -08'00' 4.4.13 Wayfinding Wayfinding signage is an important tool in creating a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly community that is desirable to both residents and visitors. Wayfinding signage can help create a sense of place and identity. Carlsbad has already made an effort towards implementing both pedestrian and bicyclist wayfinding signage in the Barrio and Village. Wayfinding signage should preserve and play off of the unique historical and modern aspects of these neighborhoods that make them unique and give them character. Additional bicycle wayfinding signage in the Barrio and Village should be implemented to 1) create bikeway routes that host a variety of different types of bicycle infrastructure (and are therefore appealing to a broader audience) and 2) to create designated pathways for people to follow that create a 'path' or'trail'for people to ride along. Routes can be designed to pass by interesting landmarks, natural or human-created or tour historical sit~s, for instance. Wayfinding signage should include information on the direction, distance, and accessibility level of the bikeway being taken, in addition to point out other bikeways or destinations that can be reached. ,-' '-. . . I _, ,rl.;1 ,: _ Wayfinding 4.S Implement Parking and Transportation Demand Strategies 4.5.1 Existing Conditions and Parking Studies This section summarizes existing parking conditions and provides parking strategies as an integral part of Village and Barrio mobility initiatives. Currently, on-street parking is located throughout the Village and is also free. Parking in some on-street spaces is time restricted. The majority of private parking spaces in the Village serve commercial businesses, churches, offices and other uses. By and large, the parking is located on the same property as the building or buildings they serve and some of it is accessed only by alley. Many parking lots ar~ restricted to use by customers and employees only. Thus, some parking lots sit empty after businesses close. The Barrio area is served by public streets wide enough to provide on-street parking on both sides of the street; the notable exception is narrow Tyler Street, which accommodates parking only on one side. As in the Village, parking is free. The Barrio is not served by dedicated public parking lots as is the Village, although a large public parking area serves Pine Avenue Park and the Carlsbad Senior Center. Two recent parking surveys in 2014 and 2016 determined the majority of public parking had an average occupancy at or below 85 percent of available spaces. This percentage is considered an ideal utilization ratio for a parking lot. Historically, surveys of Village public parking lots have revealed an average occupancy below the 85 percent threshold as well. In 2016 the city conducted a comprehensive parking study and developed a Parking Management Plan (PMP) for the Village, Barrio, and adjacent beach area. The adjacent beach area was included to provide the full picture of parking along the coast and its potential impact on the Village. The purpo_se of the parking study was to obtain accurate data to better understand current parking conditions -particularly parking occupancy, demand, and behavioral data -and to estimate how future commun1ty growth would impact the need for parking infrastructure and management in the area. The 2016 study produced an inventory of all available public and private (privately-owned and dedicated to a specific property) parking spaces in the study area which totaled 11,657 parking spaces, excluding parking associated with single-family homes and properties with controlled access that includes 4,971 on-street parking spaces, 730 public off- street parking spaces; 5,445 private off-street parking spaces and 511 parking spaces on NCTD-owned lots. There are pockets of high demand where parking occupancy has reached effective capacity, leading to difficulty finding parking in those areas. High-demand areas include on-street facilities west of the railro?td tracks, Village Faire parking lot, and on-street facilities in the Village center on Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and State Street. However, the study did reveal that the current and future parking supply is adequate to meet demand if the parking system, as part of the larger transportation system, is actively managed. 4.5.2 Managing Parking and Increasing Mobility Key recommendations and strategies from the Parking Management Plan (PMP) are incorporated into this Master Plan for implementation. The PMP provides implementable short-term (by year 2020), medium-term (by year 2025), and long-term (by year 2035) strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the parking system and increase mobility within the Village and Barrio. The PMP was developed with the following goals in mind: Make parking more convenient for community members, employees, and visitors Promote more efficient use of existing parking Support future parking needs and mobility options Explore options to make the project area more inviting for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit riders • Support the vision outlined of the Master Plan MASTER PLAN JANUARY2018 4-63 To address the observed parking demand imbalance and maximize the efficient use of the parking system, the PMP recommends that the city implement a comprehensive parking management program to strengthen and itnprove shared parking in the area and implement other parking management and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to create a more balanced and efficient parking system. The key recommendations consist of the following strategies:strategies to create a more balanced and efficient parking system. The PMP consists of the following strategies: On-Street Parking Reconfiguration and Curb Lane Management • Parking Time Limits • Enforcement and Ambassadors Shared and Leased Parking In-Lieu Fees • Parking Requirements for New Developments Priced Parking Parking Waynnding Parking management strategies consist of policies and practices working together to improve parking efficiency. Frustrations with parking in the area stem from inefficiencies and imbalances in the system, not a lack of parking spaces. To address the demand imbalance and maximize the use of available spaces, parking management strategies should be implemented prior to construction of a new parking garage: A. On-Street Parking Reconfiguration and Curb Lane Management There are currently 4,971 on-street parking spaces in the study area which are most visible to visitors and business patrons. Reconfiguring existing parking can add spaces to the system. This section discusses strategies for possible reconfiguration of on-street spaces. This section also addresses curb lane management strategies to balance user needs including commercial and passenger loading, on-street parking, safety restrictions, ADA access, etc. Red Curb to Parking Spaces . hl!] Red curbs exist for safety, including providing safe sight-linaarintersections and driveways and safe access for parked vehicles, transit stops, fire hydrant access, and~fteni r bicycle parking 'corrals~ As land use and infrastructure conditions change, the need for a portion or the entire red curb may no longer be required. To assess the need for a red curb to remain when land use changes occur, a technical review and analysis will be conducted. This analysis must include traffic safety best practices, the city's street design manual, and surrounding context along the curb to determine whether a red curb area could be converted into parking spaces or other public use. These reviews will be conducted on a case-by-case basis as developments change or if questioned by the public, developer, or city. Thoughtful consideration into the application and maintenance of red curbs will also be given to ensure that they are appropriate and their intended use is fulfilled. 4-64 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:66 ,,. Number: 1 Author: pete often? Maybe delete both words? []Number.2 IT]Number. 3 Author: pete Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 7:07:54 PM -08'00' Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 7:06:40 PM -08'00' Subject Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 7:07:02 PM -08'00' If deemed unnecessary, the curb area can be converted to vehicle parking if contiguous 24-foot for parallel spaces or 12-foot sections for diagonal spaces of curb are available. An additional 5 feet of buffer on either end of an angled parking area or space is also necessary. While this strategy may only yield a limited number of new parking spaces, it is a highly cost-effective method for delivering new parking and should be pursued when applicable and appropriate. Curb Cuts and Driveways to Parking Spaces Unnecessary curb cuts can limit on-street parking supply. The city will carefully analyze curb cuts to define areas where closures can occur and additional on-street parking can be implemented. Curb cuts and driveways provide access to properties and facilitate efficient movement between the property and the roadway. Regulated by city code and development agreements, some curb cuts and driveways may no longer be necessary as land uses and access needs change over time. To convert a curb.cut or driveway into new parking, a study must be conducted to determine if access remains necessary. If determined to be unnecessary, the curb cut or driveway is chained off or new curb is insta.lled. Red curb related to the driveway also may be removed. If there is enough space for parked vehicles along the new curb, additional spaces could be added into the parking system for each contiguous 24-foot for parallel spaces or 12-foot for angled spaces segment of conversion. An additional 5 feet of buffer on either end of an angled parking area or space is also necessary. Even though the amount of curb cut and driveway removal is likely limited in the study area and any new spaces are likely to be limited, this method for providing additional on-street parking should be pursued. Parallel Parking Spaces to Angled Parking Spaces Some roadways have large amounts of right-of-way dedicated to vehicular travel. In the case of lower speed corridors, this right-of-way can be minimized to reconfigure parallel parking spaces into angled parking spaces, providing additional parking capacity and the added benefit of traffic calming. Additionally, restriping parallel parking to angled parking is a relatively low cost option for providing more on-street parking supply. This conversion type requires several factors: At least 49 feet of right-of-way for angled parking along both curbs At least 44 feet of right-of-way for angled parking along one curb Low traffic volumes and low vehicular speeds Recommended on roads with two lanes of travel-roads with four lanes could be acceptable in certain conditions as determined by the city, however, four lanes roads typically have higher traffic volumes and higher speeds. Providing angled parking on four lane roadways increases the likelihood of crashes and conflicts with other motorists and bicyclists. MAC.TS:P Pl AN If these conditions are met, further analysis of safety conditions and street design standards will help determine the feasibility of creating additional parking spaces. A new angled parking space may be created for each 12 feet of contiguous curb space and 5 feet of buffer on either end of the angled parking area. Because multiple roadways meet the criteria for parallel to angled parking conversion, a significant number of new spaces might be created pending site-specific analysis. Front-In Angled Parking -This type of angled parking requires the user to pull into a parking space with the front of their vehicle in the direction of travel on the roadway. Front-in angled parking is the most common form of angled parking and is easy for users to enter the space. It is, however, difficult to back out of parking spaces with this configuration, since visibility is nearly often obscured and drivers back into the street'blind~ making this configuration less safe than back-in angled parking (see below) for bicyclists. Back-In Angled Parking -This type of parking requires the user to back into a parking space with the rear of the vehicle in the opposite direction of travel. The back-in angled parking strategy has been applied because of the safety enhancements realized for users leaving a parking space. A user can easily see oncoming traffic (and bicyclists) and exit the parking space in a much safer manner. [QJ1' Angled parking uses more right-of-way than parallel parking and may preclude additional bicycle enhancements along the roadway. If a bikeway is planned adjacent to an area with angled parking, back-in angled parking is recommended to enhance sight lines between drivers and bicyclists. Back-in angle parking is safer for bicyclists, and as noted above, is usually safer for drivers as well. Many drivers initially feel uncomfortable with back-in angle parking because it is uncommon and requires a backing movement within an active travel lane._This, however, is a less complicated movement than the typical parallel parking maneuver that drivers are well accustomed to. Intentional consideration of on-street parking and development of a consistent policy that incorporates the process for on-street parking configurations while balancing other curb lane uses is provided through Curb Lane Management. Angled parking 4-66 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1.16.18 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Page:68 ~ Number: 1 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 7:19:40 PM -08'00' Drivers and passengers exit toward the sidewalk when the doors are open, which is safer for young children. It is also safer to load packages from the sidewalk than the street into the trunk or rear of the vehicle. Should this be added to reduce the "resistance to change" impact of a "new" strategy? Curb Lane Management Curb lane management helps guide management and implementation decisions for new developments, thus maintaining the established structure of curb lane uses over time. Curb lane uses are consolidated along each block, in accordance with the surrounding land uses, to provide a standard structure. A standard structure with supportive policies creates predictability, which decreases the amount of confusion on knowing Where to park. Curb lanes can also be made flexible to accommodate different users during different times of the day (e.g. commercial loading zones in the morning and general public use for passeng~r pick-up and drop-off in the evening). Signage associated with curb lane management will have the same theme, branding, and messaging style as the wayfinding signage already implemented in the Village and Barrio. B. Parking Time Limits The City will maintain and enforce existing time limits. Data collected and analyzed as part of the 2016 study indicate t hat the two-and three-hour time limit restrictions are currently adequate for supporting turnover in the area. The data showed t hat most people in the Village (where time limit regulations are currently posted) parked for two hours or less. This indicates that the existing time limits of two and three hours is reasonable for the area. However, the survey data also indicated that employees of businesses in the area park in on-street spaces directly adjacent to their destination. This indicates the need for proactive enforcement to encourage employees to park off-street. The annual collection of parking occupancy and duration data may be used to adjust time limit regulations to meet the changing needs of the community. In some instances, it may be suitable to implement shorter time limits to influence turnover or longer time limits to influence a shift in demand. - Time limits may be extended to new areas. According to the buildout (2035) projections, commercial development is planned to intensify in the Village, particularly along Grand Avenue, and on streets between Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue. To encourage turnover in these areas and support business access, it would be beneficial to implement time limit restrictions along those streets. The city will evaluate parking occupancies and duration annually in conjunction with a review of commercial developments to identify areas of commercial growth and expand the time limit restrictions to support those developments. Parking time limits may be extended after 5 p.m. to 4 hours. In the evening, people come to the area for nightlife activities, such as dining. Parking for restaurants requires a slightly longer time period than retail, which for retail is about two or three hours. The existing daytime par~ing limits are adequate to accommodate the d?ytime demands; however, the city may extend the time limits to four hours after 5 p.m. to allow patrons to visit restaurants and other nightlife destinations without worrying about receiving a citation. It is important to maintain parking time limit restrictions after 5 p.m. to encourage turnover of spaces, since 7 p.m. is the peak parking period in the study area. Overnight parking restrictions may be revised. The current overnight parking restrictions are in place to prevent non- residential users from parking on the street. However, this has restricted access to on-street parking by the residents, especially at the north end of State Street where more residential housing is being constructed. Going forward, the city may assess the necessity of maintaining the overnight restrictions, then resort to other parking management solutions if necessary. MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-67 The Oversize Vehicle Ordinance may be revised. The Oversized Vehicles Ordinance allows RVs and other oversized vehicles to park on the street for a consecutive 72-hours. The city may consider reducing the time RVs are allowed to park on-street to 24-hours. The city may also implement a graduated fine for repeat offenders. Each time the same RV is in violation of the parking regulation, the fine will increase to help limit long-term RV parking or camping on city streets while maintaining public access to the beach for recreational purposes. C. Enforcement and Ambassadors Enforcing existing and proposed parking regulations is critical to the success of the program. Parking enforcement should be conducted regularly and consistently and with a focus on customer service. For instance, if an area has two- hour time limits, the route for the enforcement personnel needs to be completed in two hours. Active enforcement encourages compliance with the parking regulations through education and citations, thus maximizing the use of the existing parking resources. Parking enforcement strategies include: Intermittent enforcement patterns Consistent enforcement Extend enforcement hours to 8 p.m. Enforcement officers as ambassadors First offense warnings Graduated fine structure (for illustrative purposes only; actual structure may vary at time of implementation): » 1st Offense -$0 fine with a warning educating the user » 2nd Offense -$25 fine with an explanation on the ticket of how and where to park. The intent is to ensure compliance through education, not harsher punishments » 3rd Offense-$50 fine » 4th Offense -$100 fine D .. Shared and Leased Parking Sharing existing parking facilities is a management solution that benefits the entire community by making better use of the existing parking supply, creating availability of more spaces, and relieving frustrations from those using the parking facilities. Shared and leased parking will be encouraged in private, underutilized lots throughout the area. These lots can meet their business demands and have available spaces for other users. Those extra spaces could be opened to the public. Shared and leased parking allows two or more land uses to utilize the same parking facility without conflict. The intent is to optimize the use of the parking supply so that parking is not underutilized. The practice of shared and leased parking works best with a mixture of nearby land uses that have offsetting peak conditions, such as an office and a church. Typically, shared and leased parking is a tool that is used between private businesses. However, cities can and do participate in shared and leased parking opportunities. Businesses closed on weekends and evenings, for example, present opportunities the city could explore as potential public parking resources throughout the Village. n,,n, ,,. n,.,, ... , •• ....,.,.. • .,. .... ,,. ---- The following strategies are a part of the Village and Barrio shared and leased parking approach: Develop standard liability language -The city currently d0es not have standard liability coverage for shared and leased parking agreements. The parking manager, discussed later in this document, should explore standard shared and leased parking agreements from peer and/or other example cities, such as San Clemente's Offsite Shared Parking Agreement, for appropriate liability and other agreement language that would be desirable by the city. Maintain and broker shared and leased parking agreements t o encourage development -The parking program should be responsible for actively brokering shared parking agreements for existing businesses and new devt;Jopment using the known inventory of parking spaces, occupancy data from this study, and subsequent updates based on annual data collection efforts to help define opportunity areas. For shared and leased parking to be successfully implemented, the city needs to play a very active role in both identifying shared parking opportunities in high-demand areas and negotiating agreements for the shared use of the parking facility. Shared and leased parking can be between two or more private businesses (existing and/or new development) or between the city and private business, where the private business decides to open its parking facility to the public during non-business hours. » Identify parking that is underutilized (50 percent and lower occupancies) and is within 1,320 feet (quarter mile, an acceptable walking tolerance in the study area) to the business. Underutilized parking facilities will be identified on an annual basis as part of the annual data collection. » Revise existing distance requirements for shared parking from 150 feet and 300 feet (as stated in the CMC and previous Vill~ge Master Plan an d Design Manual, respectively) to the longer distance of 1,320 feet, which is generally considered an acceptable 5-minute walk. » Annual data collection results should be made public with specific analysis of shared and leased parking efficiencies and areas of opportunity provided to private property owners in order to inform them regarding their options regarding parking as it relates to future new developments and expansions. >> As with .any parking facility, the pedestrian experience should be considered when evaluating potential facilities for shared and leased parking opportunities. This includes a safe path of travel between the parking facility and destination that is well illuminated, has clear wayfinding and signage, and is designed to promote a walkable, park-once mentality for residents, employees, and visitors in the area. Also, it is important to keep in mind that many pedestrians need to utilize assistive services, such as wheelchairs and walkers. 'Universal' accommodations should be provided. Utilize shared and leased parking opportunities to create off-site employee parking -Define specific employee parking opportunities where employees who work in the study area can park in the designated facility. This can be accomplished through outreach and education or through a permit program. Permits can be provided at no cost to further incentivize their use. The city should administer the permits to employees, with proof of employment in the study area. This approach works best when on-street parking is regulated with time limits or paid parking, because employees must choose among: » Receiving a citation for a time limit violation » Moving their vehicle every two or three hours to avoid a citation MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-69 .. .. " • Utilize shared and leased parking opportunities for valet parking -Parking valet services can simplify the parking experience for visitors and is appropriate for popular destinations like the Village. Underutilized off-street parking facilities can be used to house vehicles that use valet services, where applicable. The city may broker agreements between valet companies and parking facility managers to determine the amount of parking that could be set aside for valet use and the times and days of the week it would be appropriate to share the parking facility. Not only does this support improved utilization of existing parking assets, but may provide new developments an additional parking resource. The valet could be managed through a centralized valet that serves primary destinations in the Village. A centralized valet uses one valet operator stationed at strategic locations throughout the area to serve a large sectioh of the community. This centralized operation allows patrons to drop their vehicle at one location, walk between multiple destinations, and pick up their car from another valet stand at another location. This concept provides greater access to businesses in a district and promotes more active use of the district. Each application of this strategy will be unique to the location and will be carefully reviewed to determine the optimal location of the valet station, loading zone and queues, the location of the storage lot, and parking method, as well as the impact of traffic along the route from the generating land use(s) to the storage lot. Policies should be set to determine how far a storage lot can be from the destination and around valet service operations should be managed to ensure neighborhoods are not detrimentally impacted. Lease parking spaces in existing facilities for public use -Investigate the potential to lease parking spaces in underutilized facilities to open those spaces to the public and optimize the available parking supply in the study area. These locations could be used as park once locations that are served by mobility services that access areas outside of a reasonable walking distance of the leased lots. Lease parking spaces in NCTD facilities for public use -NCTD currently owns a significant portion of right of way along the railroad tracks through the study area. Current plans to double-track the railroad would use additional right of way, but still leave a surplus of useable space in the future. This space would be predominately along the western part of the tracks between Tamarack Avenue and Oak Avenue. Parking along the tracks could provide additional parking for beach access, which in turn would relieve parking conflicts on residential streets between residents and beach-goers. While a portion of thjs area is currently farther away from many commercial or shared-use opportunity areas within the Village and northern beach area, the area close to the Village is able to provide new parking supply that could be of great use and benefit to the Village. Furthermore, even though the southernmost portion is further from the Village, it could provide substantial parking resources for beachgoers in the southern portion of the study area. This could alleviate some of t he residentia l concerns with use of on-street parking by beachgoers. Additionally, if plans to connect the street or pedestrian network across the tracks are realized, there is a significant opportunity for the location to serve local businesses, visitors, and employees, especially on the northern end of the potential parking area. If the connectivity and transportation improvements are not made, the lot could still serve as a park once lot if paired with regular or high·quality mobility services like a trolley or circulator. All plans for improving parking should include an evaluation of whether adequate disabled parking is provided in the facility . Monitor shared and leased parking system annually-Annually audit the shared and leased parking program by collecting parking occupancy data and feedback regarding the business and patron experience. At the same time, the city should also assess the status of any shared and leased parking agreements in place and how well they are functioning. The city could adjust the program to meet the needs of the community as it evolves. While participation in shared and leased parking agreements by private business owners and developers is optional, as is providing access to such private parking facilities for ongoing data collection and analysis of the parking system for the area, the city will encourage such participation so as to better inform future parking decisions that will impact all destinations with the given area. Additionally, private properties that participate in shared and leased parking agreements are only bound to the negotiated and agreed upon terms of the agreement specific to their property or parking facility. The property owner has the flexibility to determine the length of time they wish to participate in shared or leased parking. For instance, an agreement may be renewable on an annual basis, and the property owner (or lessee for that matter) may opt to not continue with the arrangement in favor of expanding their primary building and change their parking supply, subject to city approval. Property owners must still comply with the city's parking standards and seek proper approvals and permits for any changes to parking. E. In-Lieu Fees The city currently has a Parking In-Lieu Fee Program, but the 2017 PMP recommends that the current program be restructured to minimize underutilized parking facllities and to contribute to mobility improvements in the area. In-lieu fee programs are important to not only support economic development in a downtown area, but they also are a significant funding source for the community. In many communities, in-lieu fee programs fund non-parking infrastructure improvements, such as alternative transportation measures that reduce parking demand. Please also refer to Chapter 2-La nd Use section 2.6.6 addressing Parking In-Lieu Fee Program requirements. Th e following strategies provide Village and Barrio in-lieu fee policies: Maintain the current in-lieu fee rate -The city should continually monitor the participation rate in the in-lieu fee program as well as public parking occupancy rates. Review fees annually -Evaluate the in-lieu fee annually and adjust as needed to prioritize reinvestment of collected fees with the goals of the overall parking and transportation system. The goal is to maintain a fee that encourages participation in the program and promote shared parking, and is high enough to fully fund implementation of a range of parking management strategies. Over time, the city may set the in-lieu fee to be no higher than 60 percent (based on current conditions) of the cost of constructing a structured parking space in the community to encourage participation in the program. All fees should be used to reinvest back into the parking system and parking management strategies. Parking occupancy should be used as the metric that determines when changes to the fee in-lieu program need to occur. The city may consider adding more public parking through leases and shared spaces when the parking occupancy threshold within the in- lieu fee boundary reaches 85 percent occupancy. MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-71 ,. .. "' Use development regulations to encourage participation in the in-lieu fee program -As infill development occurs in the study area, developers will be encouraged to pay the in-lieu fee rather than construct new _ parking because the relative value of available space for other uses will increase. The city may also use development regulations that limit the ability to build surface parking for good urban design reasons: more efficient use of land, improve aesthetics, reduce heat islands, promote walkability, etc. Master Plan Chapter 2 includes development standards and design guidelines that encourage effective placement, efficient function and more pleasing appearance of surface parking. Allow funds to pay for parking program improvements -Amend the policies related to the in-lieu fee program to allow the collected funds to support shared parking and leased parking that the city will broker. Funds should also be used to support strategies that reduce parking demand in the area. Eligible projects could include valet services, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian amenities or programs that encourage rides haring, which would reduce the need for on-site parking at businesses and encourage the use of centralized shared parking. Consider geographic expansion in the future -As the community develops, the city will evaluate the need to expand the in-lieu fee area west of the railroad tracks to support new public demands and maintain proximate walking distances from future shared public parking facilities. If there is a significant amount of commercial development, the city should re-evaluate the need for expansion. Evaluate the program annually-The intent of evaluating the program annually is to monitor participation and make changes to structure and rate. Historically, use of the program has been relatively low. However, in recent years, the usage appears to be Increasing. Therefore, it is important that the following metrics be reviewed annually so that informed decisions can be made regarding the in-lieu fee program. The following metrics should be tracked, evaluated and made available to the public as a way of educating and informing private property owners and the development community so they understand their options, rights, and abilities to meet their parking needs. » Parking occupancy in and around new developments -Parking occupancy should be used as the metric that determines when changes to the In-lieu fee program need to occur. The city will seek more public parking through leases and shared spaces when the parking occupancy threshold within the in-lieu fee boundary reaches 85 percent occupancy. » Type, size, and location of new developments -Understanding where new development is occurring, the type of developments (residential vs. non-residential), and how large developments are in terms of sq uare footage or number of units can help the city make informed decisions about where the in-lieu fee program should expand. Future expansion should primarily occur where developments, such as commercial and office, are generating higher levels of parking demand and provide the opportunity to implement shared and leased parking. )) Revenue generated -Understanding how much revenue is generated by the in-lieu fee program will help inform investment decisions of parking management strategies. If the program is not generating enough revenue to cover parking management strategies (e.g. lease rates for shared spaces), the city could consider discontinuing portions of the shared parking program funded by in lieu fees that do not impact participants. » Compare the number of developments participating in the program vs. not participating -Reviewing how many developments are using in-lieu fees to pay for parking compared to those that do not will indicate whether the program and supporting policies provide enough incentive to encourage participation. To help encourage in-lieu fee participation, leased spaces and TDM improvements should be implemented within a reasonable walking distance (1,320 feet) to the participating developments. » Number of spaces paid for with the in-lieu fee vs. spaces actually provided {by development and annual total) -Tracking this will allow the city to easily quantify how much parking is being added to the parking system (both public and private) in the study area, and the rate at which parking is being paid for through the in-lieu fee. This information coupled with parking occupancy data (public vs. private) will inform the city whether the public parking supply is efficiently meeting demands of participating developments and the community at large. Make the program transparent -Provide information about how the in-lieu fees are utilized to help promote transparent application of the collected fees. A website should document current and historic usage of the fee to help the community understand how the program is working. Part of this transparency should stem from information released to the public and business community regarding economic impacts and how they are related to parking availability. It needs to be made clear to the public and businesses that it is not more parking that supports businesses, but access to available parking and increased mobility that will contribute to economic success. F. Parking Requirements for New Deveiopment Parking requirements define the amount of on-site parking that various developments must provide. Traditionally, these requirements have been applied to ensure that specific land uses have adequate parking supplyto meet demand. Minimum parking rates are often based on studies of single-use developments in conventional suburban environments. Such standards often do not account for decreased parking demand that results from compact, mixed- use development served by transit and other non-auto modes of transit. Requiring more parking than necessary to serve new development could become detrimental to the economic growth and preservation of the pedestrian- friendly character in the Village and Barrio area. The minimum parking standards found in Section 2.6.6 have been tailored to reflect the more compact, walkable and mixed-use character of the Master Plan area. The parking ratios were developed by considering the results of the 2016 parking study, reviewing the parking 'best practices' of peer cities, and validated by computer modeling·software (Kimley-Hom's Park+ model). The intent of establishing reduced parking requirements is to better align parking requirements with actual parking needs in the Master Plan area and to transition to a system that utilizes shared parking supply. Shared parking in combination with reduced parking requirements for new development will optimize the use of existing parking while still allowing developers to provide necessary parking on-site. A reduced number of spaces required encourages mixed-use, pedestrian-scaled development, and can stimulate economic growth in the area. Given the underutilization of the overall parking system, a combination of shared parking initiatives, participation in the in-lieu fee program, and reduced parking requirements will promote a more efficient use of existing parking facilities. Going forward, parking supply and demand in the Master Plan area will be regularly analyzed, allowing for further fine- tuning of minimum parking standards, incentives and demand management strategies. MASTER PLAN JANUARY 2018 4-73 G. Priced Parking When parking demands in an area become so high that parking facilities (on-and off-street) operate above the system's effective capacity (85 percent occupancy), paid parking becomes a highly effective way to influence behavior, redistribute parking demands, and promote economic activity through turnover of parking spaces. It is critical to note that paid parking should not be implemented with the intent to increase revenue. Implementation of paid parking must be driven by the parking demands experienced in the study area and the need to create access to businesses. The fee for parking encourages people to choose the priced transaction, park further away in a lower priced facility, or use an alternative transportation option to reach their destination, thus creating more available spaces in high-demand areas and facilitating access to businesses. The provision of options to park in other locations or use alternative transportation helps to redistribute parking demand throughout the area. lildditionally, it is also important to understand the various components tied to paid parking. While parking in the Master Plan area is currently free, there is still a cost that is passed onto people unbeknownst to them. It requires money to construct, designate, regulate, and manage parking, whether it is on the street, in a lot, or a garage. These costs are absorbed by private property owners, store tenants, facility managers, and the city. As a result, these costs are usually passed on to the customers through marked up prices on goods and services but the cost to park is subsidized. By managing parking appropriately and providing a cost to it, the consumer is able to make informed decisions on how they spend their money. ~ While implementing priced parking is not recommended at this time, it may become necessary and desirable in the future. The PMP describes a phased priced parking approach that the city could follow: Determine the threshold for implementing paid parking Identify locations to implement paid parking Define technology to manage the system Establish a Parking Benefit District where paid parking is implemented Evaluate the parking system regularly H. Parking Wayfinding Parking wayfinding is extremely helpful in directing people to desired parking locations. Effective means of conducting wayfinding is through stationary signage, dynamic signage (electronic signs that change messages to indicate how many spaces are open in a facility), digital maps posted on websites, and smartphone applications. A few years ago, the city implemented themed wayfinding signage throughout the study area to direct people to public parking facilities, and it has been received successfully by the community. The following are strategies to expand upon the success of the current wayfinding to allow people to find parking easier and faster and improve traffic congestion associated with searching for parking: .. ..,,. Page:76 []Number:! Author: pete Subject: Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 9:04:13 PM -08'00' Number: 2 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 9:13:06 PM -08'00' There are revenue neutral parking plans that pay back the collected fees to everyone in the City, essentially reducing or eliminating the subsidy for those who use the parking and distributing funds to people who do not. Should this be part of the the TOM plan? This would also benefit the Climate Action Plan through monetary incentives to use alternative transportation. Additional signage for lots where the City leases space Smartphone applications Real-time parking information Post parking map on website I. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TOM) consists of programs, policies and actions that aim to reduce reliance on solo-occupant vehicle use, in part by providing more options for getting around. The goals, policies, standards and programs identified in the Master Plan support the vision to more fully transform the Village and Barrio into a vibrant, walkable community, supported by a mix of uses and transit options. An important outcome will be to shift people from vehicle-focused travel, and more use of other modes: walking, bicycling and transit. The city is presently engaged in, or will initiate a number ofTDM-related initiatives both on a citywide basis as well as focused in the Village and Barrio area. These initiatives include: Development and adoption of a TOM Ordinance Conduct TOM outreach and encouragement Expand wayfinding signage Consideration of a circulator-type transit service, such as a trolley, within the Barrio, Village, and beach areas Identify and dedicate passenger pick-up/drop-off locations throughout the study area Provide employer based TDM programs Build out a protected bicycle network with barrier Build out an enhanced pedestrian network Incorporate car-share, valet, and electric vehicle parking as appropriate into streetscape and public parking projects • lilvaluate feasibility for bike share program that would serve Village and improve mobility along the coast Incorporate intelligent transportation system (ITS) infrastructure to support autonomous vehicles IO~ Promote the use of transit through transit-focused infrastructure upgrades MASTER PLAN JANUARVl01R II "JC Page:77 :fJNumber: 1 Author: pete Subject Highlight Date: 02/20/2018 9:00:46 PM -08'00' Number: 2 Author: pete Subject: Sticky Note Date: 02/20/2018 9:02:42 PM -08'00' Isn't Carlsbad already planning to participate in the Lime Bike dockless bike share program along with all the other North County Cities? This page left intentionally blank. THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP Scott Donnell Senior .Planner City of Carlsbad 25014 Las Brisas Road South, Suite B Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 Facsimile: (951) 304-7571 February 28, 2018 community and Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carls·bad, CA 92008-7314 Via email and 0 .S. mai l Re: Carl sbad Zoning/Village & Barrio Master Pl an (Revised January 2018) -Publ ic Record Dear Scott: I appreciate your prompt response to my February 21, 2018 letter essenti ally confirming that the new parking standards -set forth in the Village & Barrio Master Plan, Revised January 2018 ("1/18 Plan"), will now control in the Village and Barrio. It now appears that a proposed final draft of the 1/18 Plan will be compl eted and submitted to the Pla~njng Commission a~d the City Council for r eview, comment and approval wit~~n the next few months . It is my understanding t .hat the public essentially has unti l February· 28, 2018, to provide t heir final written cornm~nts to staff for cons~deration. In light of the above, I 'want to make certain that City staff includes some relevant Letters, emails, comments and comu1unications regarding the Village & Barrio Master Plan, as part of the "public record'' in City staff's final submission(s) to the Planning Commission and City Council. Accordingly, I am submitting the enclosed "Notice of Lodgment" containing an index and copies of some of the relevant communications I have had wi th the City concerning the J:t:1aster Plan from approximately October of 2015 through and including t he present date. In addition, I woul d like to make a few closing comments regarding this process. It appears from the 1/18 Pl an (and all earlier versions) that City staff is and has been determined to reduce the parking standards in the Vi llage and Barrio by approximatel y 35% from the current standards under Chapter 22.44. In fact, these new standards appear t o be even lower than the incentivized affordable housing standards currently establ ished under Municipal Code section 21.86.090(G) Tabl e E. Based upon my observations thxough t his process, it seems relat ively clear that these proposed parking :·.standards under t he 1/18 Plan, will likely be . the lowest parking standards of any beach city in San Diego County and perhaps in all beach cities in Southern California. Page Two Feb ruary 28, 2018 The City spent approximately $250,000 on a parking study that bas ically only studied and analyzed: a) what the parking capabilities are in the Village and Barrio at the present t ime; b) how they are now utilized; and c) how they should b~ monitored and managed in the f uture. From my review of the parking study1 there was apparently NO investigation or analysis into any of the current parking problems, demands , standards or issues in other San Diego beach Cities who now have lower parking standards than under Carlsbad's existing ordinance(s) (i.e., Chapter 22.44). In fact, in my 12/22/2015 letter to you, Austin Silva and Jason King, I suggested tha t an examination of these surrounding cities is important and necessary to understand and implement parking standards that mitigate and preferably avoid similar f uture problems in Carlsbad (see Notice of Lodgment, pg. 0034, items 5 ~ 6 ). I continued to raise these studies of other citiea in_ community meetings while the parking study was being processed, which suggestions , to my knowledge, were either ignored or not seriously considered. Something which was also unacceptable during this entire -process was that Mayor Matt Hall and Councilman Mark Packard steadfastly refused to meet or discuss with me my concerns and issues regarding the Master Plan or other issues (see Notice of Lodgment, pgs. 0001-0002, 0009, 0021 and 0071-0077). -Al though Council Members Michael Schumacher, Keith Blackburn, and Cori Schumacher do not necessarily see eye-to-eye with me on these issues, they did ex tend the courtesy to a t least meet with me to discuss my concer~s. My wife and I went through the normal process required by resident stakeholders to have their concerns about the Master Plan considered by City s taff. We submitted written comments to City staff and attended many planning and community meetings on the Master Plan over the past two (2) plus ye_ars, only. to have our Mayor and Councilman Packard refuse to meet personally with me to discuss our concerns. Simpl y stated, I, as a resident and registered voter ·of the Barrio, expect more from our elected representatives. In conclusion, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for your professional courtesy and cooperation in responding to 1 my inquiries and considering my co~ents regarding· the , Master Pl during this lengthy process. JLB :kg Enclosures THE By : cc : City Council (Emai l only) ,. Joh Honorable Matt Hal l, Mayor (matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov) Honorabl~ Keith Blackburn (keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable.Mark Packard (roark.packard@carlsbadca.gov) i I ! t I f I a I I ij I i I r I Page Three February 28, 2018 Honorable Cori Schumacher (cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Michael Schumacher (michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov) cc: Planning Commission Members (Email only) Honorable Jeff Segall, Chairman Honorable Velyn Anderson Honorable.Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Siekmann ' Honorable L~sa Rodman Honorable Patrick Goyarts (c/o Planning Commission Clerk at planning@carlsbadca.gov) Pam Drew, Associate Planner (via email only). Barrio Neighbors (via email only) .. , ' 0 Re: Vill~ge & Barrio Master Plan, Final Submission To: Scott Donnell, Senior Plannerr City of Carlsbad, Planning Commission and City Council From: John and Jan Bailey Date: February 28, 2018 Subject: Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits for Public Record PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that John and Jan Bailey, 790 Magnolia Avenue, Carlsbad, California, hereby attach and incorporate her ein by reference relevant letters, emails and written communications regarding the proposed final draft of the Village & Barrio Master Plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council for the City of Carlsbad, which are identified and bate s t amped page numbered as follows: (1) Letter from John Bailey to the·· Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor, dated October 8, 2016 regarding Municipal Code Section 21.45.060/ General Development Standards for RD-M Zones, with enclosures of: (a) letter from Scott Donnell to J'ohn Bailey dated October 61 2015; and (b) qhain of emails between John Bailey, Scott Donnell and Austin Silva from October 5-7, 2015 (2) Letter from John Bailey to the Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor, dated November 5, 2015, regarding Municipal Code Section 21.45.060/ General Development Standards for RD-M Zones, enclosing an email chain between John Bailey and City Pages 0001-0008 Staff from October 13 through November 5, 2015 . . 0009-0017 (3) L~tter from John Bailey to the Planning Commission dated November 16, 2015, regarding the Draft Village & Barrio Master Plan Agenda Item No . 4 November 18, 2015 Commission Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0018-0020 ( 4) Letter from John Bailey to City Council Members Keith Blackburn, Lorraine Wood and Michael Schumacher dated November 16, 2015, regarding the Village & Barrio and Pacific Wind Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0021-0022 (5) Letter from John Bailey to Scott Donnell, Austin Silva and Jason King dated December 22, 2015, regarding the Carlsbad Zoning/Vi llage & Barrio Master Plan Pacific Wind Project (SOP 15-18), enclosing "Sampl e Local Minimum Parking Requirements" . . . . . . , . . . • . . . . . . 0023-0037 (6) Letter from John Bailey to Scott Donnell dated May 26, 2016, regarding the Carlsbad Zoning Village & Barrio Master Pian (Revised April 2016) Pacific Wind Project (SDP 15-18) • . . . . . . . . . . 0038-0040 () (J Notice of Lodgme nt (7) Letter from John Bailey to Don Neu dated June 14, 2015, regarding Carlsbad/Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans (SOP 15-18/MS 15), together with enclosures of: (a) Harding Street Minor Subdivision (MS-16-01) and Informational Sit e Plan; (b) Email from Scott Donnell dated May 31, 2016, and letter from the developer (Todd Cottle); (c) Email chain from March 16, 2016 through June 6, 2016 between John Bailey, Austin Silva, Todd Cottle, and Clay Orey . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . (8) Letter from John Bailey to Don Neu dated March 28, 2017, regarding Carlsbad/Pacific Wind Project (SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01) . . . . . . . . . ....... . (9) Emails from John Bailey to Mayor Matt Hall dated May 5, 2017 and June 3, 2017 .. , . . . .... (10) Emails between Mark Packard ·and John Bailey dated M~y 5, 2017, May 26, 2017, and June , .3, 2017 . . . . •.. (11) Letter from John Bailey to Scott Donnell dated February 20, 2018, regarding Carlsbad Zoning/Village & Barrio Master Plan (Revised January 2018), enclosing "Sample Local Minimum Parking Requirements" revised 2/15/18 . (12) Letter from John Bailey to Scott Donnell dated February 21, 2018, regarding Carlsbad Zoning/Village and Barrio Master Plan (Revised January 2018), enclosing" ple Local Minimum Parking Requirements" revised 5/18 ... Respe John 790 M Carls Submitted, Pages 0041-0064 0065-0070 0071-0073 0074-0077 0078-0081 0082-0085 ,, I 0 ··-----.. --.. ·-------· ·-#<. .... -. ---~· ... --•··· .. ···-.. --· • > Honorable-Matt Hall, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 CarisbadDrive Carlsbad. CaJifornia 92008 . I.AW OFFICES HALL & BAILEY 25014 Las Brisas Road South, Suite 8 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 Facsimile:: (951) 304-7571 October 8, 2015 Re: Municipal C-Ode Section 21 .45.060/GeneraJ Development Standards for RD-M Zones Dear Honorable Mayor Hall: On August I 0, 20 I 5, J sent you and your Honorable colleagues a letter, of that date, requesting the City Council to consider a "stop gap" amendment to Municipal Code Section 21 .45.060 Table "C.7" regarding tbe general development standards for street parking spaces that are allocated or permitted for new developments in hi~IHiensity zones. I have been coinmunicating'with City staff to address this issue, but was advised, by way ofa letter dated September J 0, 20.15 from Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, that as far as staff was concerned, it was not appropriate at this time to amend Zoning Ordinance 21 .45.060 to prohibit use of on-street visitor parking calculations for proposed projects io high density areas. Mc. DoJlDell indicated that be and staff"'.-think any problems associated · with this provisfon are probably location specific and therefore the merits of its application should be considered on a project-by-project basis." On September 15, 2015. I sent a letter to Scott _Qo.nnell respoading to his letter of September 1011>, and I copied you and the City Council with that letter. On October 6, 2015, I received a letter from l\llr. Donnell, together with the 173-pagc 2/26/13 City Council "Agenda Bill" referenced in Mr. Donnell's letter. A copy of ~.Ir. DoMell's October 6, 2015 letter (without the referenced enclosure) is enclosed for your review. I have reviewed the 173-page Agenda Bill, which I understand was approved by the Council on 2/26/13. According to the Agenda Bill, the Barrio, as of 1215/12, already had about l;;. 72 existing dwelling units and could potentially increase by another 759 units under the approved Plan. Unfortunately, the existing street parking in the Barrio is already over burdened and the addition of another potential 759 units, without requmng developers to provide sufficient "'on-site" res;dent and visitor parking, will have a significant negative jmpact-.on our neighborhood. Enclosed for your review and consideration is the letter dated October 6, 2015, which I received from Scott DonoeU, together with a cbaio of emails between myself, Mr_ Donnell -and Austin Silva from October 5, 2015 to October 7. 201 S. · Apparently, the owner ordeveloperoftbeHarding Street Assemblage is requesting City staff to reduce the required parking by 45 spaoes, from 255 to210 for the proposed Pacific Wind project. In essence, the develo.per 0001 ( Page Two October 8, 20 l S () of the Ha1·ding Street Assemblage is. fTom the ontsel. proposing a substandard parking plan for this project. An overall primary concern is the potential that staff could approve the oewly proposed «Pacific Wind'' l 20-un it gated affordableapartmenl project without adequate parking spaces to accommodate all of the anticipated · residents and visitors for the project. However, our immediate concern is that unless something is done to amend the Municipal Code, the Pacific Wind project could and probabiywilJ be pushed through with insuflicienl parking and be declared acceptable because it is "Code compliant," as was the case with the Magnolia Townbome project located ar 749 and 7-63 Magnolia Avenue approved by the Planning Commission on August 5, 2015 By this correspondence, I am respectfully requesting to meet either witli you or a designated Council member to explore and discuss a "stop gap" amendment to section 21.45.060 until staff can complete its investigation and analysis as mentioned in Mr. Donnell's October 6, 20 I 5 correspondence. J believe this issue can be taken care of rather easily by simply adding two words to Table "C. 7" where the "Beach Area Overlay Zone" is referenced and having1he language ins.tea.dread: "Within 1he Barrio and Beach Area Overlay Zone, on-street parking shall not couot towru·d meeting the visitor parking requirement" By restricting the "stop gap" amendment to only add the Barrio, it would not onJy mitigate the potential negative-impact of the Pacific Wind project on the immediate areas surrounding the Harding Street Assemblage, · but also the negative impacts of futw"e developments in the Barrio. At the same time it will provide staff with some flexibilicy and more time to further evaluate and implement a revised Plan to address the street parking issues for the Village m:1d other RD-M zones throughout the City. . At your earliest opportunity, would you or one of your feUow Council members please contact me so we can schedule an informal meeting between us to discuss these issues in more depth. lf you have any questions or would like to discuss aayother concerns, please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity. · JLB:kg Enclosures cc: (all cc's with enclosures) Honorable Keith Blackburn Honorable Mark Packard Honorable Lorraine Wood Honorable Michael Schumacher Kathy Dodson, City Manager SinceR::1y, Barrio Neighbors {via email and U.S. mail) 0002 I I l I i I I I I I I H I I. 8 i· I ! ---·-------· --,· 0 0 . ·-·--··--· .. ·· .... --... .. -.....- () Cocyof Carlsbad October 6, 2015 John L Bailey Hall&Bailey Suite B 25014 Las Brisas Road South Murrieta, CA 92562 Dear Mr. Bailey: This is in response to your September l5 letter and your October 5 email. I am sorry for my tardy reply. The four items below respond to the specific Inquiries fn the letter,_ the balance of the Jetter provides additional information. 1. To lmpJement a program of the city's Housing Element, the City Council in February 2013 approved new zoning and General Plan designations tftroughout tt,e Barrio, Including the "Harding Street Assemblage." Because part of the Barrio, induding the assemblage properties, isln the Coastal Zone, changes to Co.istal Zone properties did not become effective until their approval by Coastal Commission in May 2014. As part. of the Council's and Commission's approvals, zoning of the assemblage properties changed from R~2 to RD-M, as you noted. The General Piao desig,iation.f9r these properties changed as well from RM (4-8 units per acre) to R-30 (23-30 units per acre}. I have sent the City council agenda blll .for this Item to you lnan ,email. I note as well that the city's ohline zoning and General Plan maps are updat~d to re~ect the approved designations. 2. The MHarding Street Assemblage" ts a project now formally submitted as "Pacific Wind," a gated, 120-·unitaffordable aparlfT1e11t proposal; the project was submitted to the Planning Division in late AuguS1. To view the plans filed, please contact Austin Sliva, Associate Planner, at (760) 602-4631 or atJstin.sllva@carlsbadca.gov. The plans are not available on the city's website. 3. The planning consultant working with the city on the Village and Banio Master Plan is Dover Kohl & Partners, a town planning finn based in Florida. The project director is Jason King. You are welcome fu contact the firm, but I would appreciate you correspond through me. I have sent Dover Kohl your August 10 letter so Mr. King and other firm members are aware of parking issues in the Village and Barrio. in the future, Dover Kohl & Partner.s will present a draft of the master plan to the public at an informational meeting; a concurrent pubHc review and comment period is planned. As you have signed up to receive Village and Barrio updates, you will be notified of the plan's release and public review and comment. This would be an excellent time to hear from the Qlnsultant, ask questions, and review and opine on the plan. Comm unity & Economic Development Planning Division l io35 far.1day Avenue Carlsbad.CA 92008-73i<l / 760-602-46001760-602·8S60ijwww.carl)badca.gov 0003 I I l l J I 1 I i ~ ~ I Ii f I I l l I . i ~ ;! 11 ~ . 5 ; I i a. ,. !~ ~ =~ " Mr. Bailey October 6, 2015 Page2 l';'\ { .• J 4. The parl(ing strategy and standards will appear as part of the pubfic draft of the master plan. I'm sorry, but I don't have details that I can share now as the plan is st.in in the administrative draft sl'ilge. As we prepare them, we are trying to strike a balance between capitarlZing on the area's walkable nature and proximity to transit and providing a parking strategy and reasonable standards that serve the vnrage and Barrio well over the long term. Besides the above responses, I also want to reply to other Items in your letter. First, you may know the city adopted a new General Plan last month.. Now that this important document is approved, staff will now embark on an update of ttie city's Zoning Ordinance. This update will take place through next year. As I know you have concerns about the allowance of on-street visitor parking throoghout Carlsbad, I am forwarding your letters to Corey. f-unk, Associate Planner, wbo is managing the update. Corey can be reached at (760} 602-4645 or corey.funk@carlsbadca.gov._ If you conlact him, please keep in mind the update has just begun. Also, please note that the adoption of the new General Plan did not change the Barrio densities described above. Additionally, the city has begun to ho~ community meetings regarding "'Operation Barrio Strong." These monthly meetings focus on the Barrio and are meant to provide information and a means of ongoing comm.unity dialogue. These are meetings open to the pub lie and you are invit:ed to attend. The meetings are held Monday mornings and, in opposite months, Thursday evenings. Meetings occur at the· city's Senior Center Community Activity Room at799 Pine Avenue. The next meelingswllf be held this Thursday, October 8, at 5:30 pm and Monday, November 9, at 8:30 am. At this Thursday's meeting, l Will provide a short pJesentation on the master plan now being drafted, although no discussion on a specific topic such as parking Is planned.· Finally, if you have oot already, t encourage you to review the fnformatiooon the Village and Barrio Master Pfan available at www.carlsbadca.gov/viJlagebarr!o. There, under "Reports and Pia~," a report, plan and video identify ideas for both neighborhoods generate~ during the two-week master ptan charrette held last September. These ideas have contributed-to the drafting of the master plan. Please contact me if you have any questions·at (760) 602·4618 or scott.dannell@carlsbadca.gov. SCOTT OONNEU Senior Planner c: Glen Van Peski, Community and Eccnom1c: Development Director Don Neu, Oty Planner Morgen Fry, Administrative Secretary, City Manager's office Corey Funk, Asliociate Planner Austin Silva, AsSociate PlallTler 0004 I I I I t I I I I 0 0 ---.............. -------··-·-·-----·-..... -----~ ··--- RE~ Car~bad MunicipalCodeSec.21.4S.060):1;.RD·M Zones lof4 { I -. ) Subject: RE: Carlsbad Munfcipal Code Sec. 21.45.060 re RD~M Zones From: Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov> Date: 10/7/2015 1:43 PM To: John Bailey <jbailey@hallandbailey.net> John, I appreciate your comments. I will take them into consideration and make sure they get passed afong to the a;ppropriate people. Austin Silva, AlCP Associate Planner P: 760-602-4631 City of Carlsbad Planning Division From: John Bailey [mallto;Jbailey@hallandballey.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 ,1.2:53 PM To: Austin Silva Cc~Scott Donnell; Gl~n Van Peski; Morgen Fry; Don Neu, Manager Intern.et Email; Kathf Lacroix Su:bject: cartsbacf Municipal Code Sec. 21.45.060 re RD·M Zones Mr.Silva, Thank you for your quick reply to m,y 10/7/15, email below. lf the current City code requires 255 parking spaces for the H,rrding Street Assemblage's proposed "Pacific Willd" 120 unit affordable apartment project and the developer wants to provide only 210 parf<ing.spaees, than we are going_ to exacerbate an already extremely dff(Jeult parking situation in tflis area. By my estimllte, the roughly 27 p:m:eJs 1ltaf make up the "Harding Street Assemblage" currently have a total of about 54 residential units. The $freet parlcing on Hanling Street through the Assemblage and the surrounding area is alnady severely Impacted. If you or any other City s.taff members ever drive (hrougli the Harding Street Assemblage and/or the surrounding streets on Jefferison ·and Magnolia after approximately 8 pm in the evening; you will fmd llttle, if a-ny, available street parking. "Io add another 66 dwelling units to-ihe Harding Street Assemblage propertits and at the same time allow a reduction of the "required .. on-sire parking by 45 parking space.s. tbe developer will further burden an already overly ta.xed street parking problem in this area. The lack of sufficient parking spaces in this neighborhood alre.idy does and will, as a matter of aeussity, continue to force residents and.·visifors to use street parking ttiat is illosory at best and, in reality, does not exist because of the aln?ady existing bigh number of dwelling units in the immediate area. As f understuid the City Of Carlsbad-Agenda BiU dated 2/26113, approved by the City Counsel the Barrio, as of 12/5/11-t already had about J,272 existing dwelling units which could potentially increase by another 759 units under the council approved February 2013 new zoning and Gene.ml l>lan. If the existing street parking is already over burdened the addition of another 759 units in the .Barrio, without F\lquirillg developers to provide sufficient "on site" resident and visii1,fr plU'k.ing, wm render the street parking in this neighbor-hood insufferable-and negatively effect the value, me and enjoyment of our homes. This is a11 important issue to my wife and I, as well as ow· other surrounding neighbo1s, and directly effects tlig overall quality of the neig.h!Jorhood as well as the use and enjoyment of our homes. Please do not misunderstand we are not against development or the proposed "Pacific Wind" project. Our main objective is to ensvre tbat as ttie Pacific Wmd project and other projects are proposed and developed that they are designed and constrm.1ed with sufficient parking I l ~ I I I I I I f I t l f lP/7 /2015 2:18 l>M I. !} 0005 I I I i I ij I I l ) t.J RE: Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 21.45.060 ,~,; ... RD·M Zones . . . :-) 2of4 • • • '<: spaces o~ the "project sitl:" to meet or satisfy all the visitor and resident parking requirements. I request that you please keep me updated on an ongoing basis on aJl developments relating to these parking issues for the :ilarding Street Assemblage as these pla~ are being con.side red and decided by the City staff. Thank yot1. and I rook fonvard to being kept clll"rent on this resident-visitor parkmg issue for the 'Pacific Wind project. John $oh11 Bailey LawOllitts ofB:aII & 8ailo:y 25914 La Brisa& Soulh, Solte B Mumc~. CA 92S62 (9S1} 314-1S66 01£« (951) 304-751J Fax jba,1c)'@llallandballey.11c1 CONFD>EH'nALIT\' NOTICE: ne IDl>nmdoa coallliDcd ill Ibis ekctroa,lc 1111il ouesnge Is coddentl.lllnlbniUolionloreodedo!IIY~rlhe me oftllc llld"rridu:d orea:dl/f to l'Alom It ls fnttaded to be dl-d. n., ttllderortllh roa:s113e is• Membe,-oftbc Sbrc B•r•ICalili>mia, 1od !IS eoatcnls lllaQ' be privilege cl li1>D1discloswc under lhe Attomey Client Pri1nege, the AIIO!'IIICY Worlt Pn>4ort l'rivilege, the Rigltt oFPriv~cy contnined in the Califomia ConstitUtion, owlol!U!.r rlgfilt 2nd prfvlleges th•r preclude dlsctosui,, ofcon&den1W fQtorm:illon. The inilnnatloo bt this message <naytlso be prole<#tl by t~ ElectJoalc O,~ns l'rivaey Act, J& USC Sce&m ?.SI D-lSlt, Ifd>c ruder ofllns mcH•ge Is aot 1hc late'.!ded recipient, ro• .m: -by nalfflcd diataoy disstmlalltil,Q, d",stn'l,afion orcop>iog ofellls cOUMAllkalloa is stdcl!y pn1biblted. If:,ou lave recc1Ycd Ibis coaunllJlicJoliop in emn; plCIISc munedbttly no!i&tll<: nnderby rtltlm c,..mallorot lhe 1efeplio11c numl>cr1bovc 211d deletc.lhe o~I JIJC$Ug~. --Forwarded Message -~-- Subject:RE: Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 2 I .45.060 re RD-M Zones Date:Wed, 7Oct2O1517:18:46+-0000 From:Austin Silva <Aust:in.Silya@carlsbadca.gov> To:John Bailey <jbailey@hallandbailev:net> Mr. Bailey, The parking for the Pacific Wind project is contained within the project site, and they are not proposing to use any street parking to satisfy their parking requirement They are asking for a parking reduction. They are required to have 255 parking spaces, and they are proposing 210 parking spaces on site. Staff has asked for them to provide justification for their proposed parking reduction. We have not received anything back from them atthis point Austin Silva, AICP Associate Planner P: 760-602-4631 City of cartsbad Planning Division From: John Bailey [mailto:jbailey@hartandbai ley.net} Sent: WednesdaY, October 07, 2015 9:43 AM To: Scott Donnell Cc: Austin snva; Glen \/an Peski; Morgen Fry; Don Neu; Kathi Lacroix; Manager Internet Email Subject: Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 21.4S.060 re RD·M Zones 10/7/2015 2:18 PM 0006 I 1 I I l i i i ! I i i i I I I I g I I l! I I i 1 I I I I I I I 11 . ... ... . ., .. ,_,,., -.. .--........ -·-·· 0 0 -· ___ ,.,, ..,,,,, ---RB: Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 21.4"5.060 re RD-MZones . . . . r,'!\. 3of4 • . • • 1-:;.,) ' () Mr. Donnell, The attacfJed 173 page 2/26/13 City Co11ncil "Agenda BUI" you rorwa.tded to me indicates tfu-ougb out the document tltatany new gene nil plan or zoning amendments 11 --applicable outside the Coastal Zone-," become effective within 30 days of Council's approval of the amendments ia February 2013. As J understand it the "Harding Street Assemblage" is outside the Coastal Zooe. In yoW"attacbcd 10/6/1S, letter you also " .. note as well that~ city's onllne zoning and General Plau maps are updated to reflect the approved designations." Would you also please.ten me the specific date that t!N: "online" zoaing map actually cflaoged the the zoning of the Harding Street Assemblage from R-2 to RD-Mas I requested in my 9/15/15 letter. You further st3te in yollr 10/6/15, Jetter tllat the "Harding Street Assemblage is a project now formally submitted as 'Pacif'te Wind' a gated, 120-unit affordable apartment proposal," wbidl was submitted ill fate August.. Would you and/or Austin Silva _please let me know If the Pacific Wind ''proposar• bu designed the project so that all tbe city code .required resident and(or visitor parking spaces arc actually eontainelf solely within the bonndaries of the "projectsUe." If nof trum please let me know mauy of the required resident and/or visitor parl<ing spaces arc allocated to "street . parklog." Would you also please send me the the address, phone number, and email for Jason I<iog.. You prompt attention to providing the above requested information would be greatly appreciated. Thank You, John Juba Bailey Latr Olltes trlWI & Bailey • 25014 Las Brisas South, Saru, B Murrldl, CA 92562 (l)Sl)JG+-75,G Ollice (ll-Sl)l0C--7571 Fax ibalfc>'@halJ,iqdbailg;aet CONFIDtN'TtALlTY NOTICZ: Tbe !alot,Nlioo coAtaiacd in tllis clectmnlc imif musago ts' conllde111ial infonnatfon .lltteailcd only lilr the use ortbt iodivld1111l or enti(y lo 11'1111111 It is !ote,,4ed to be cli~dod. Tu ,olldcT oflllls message ~ ,a Mo:a>bcroflhe Stare Bar ofOloomla, l!fld its cootenr.t msy be )om'Uti;od hnt dlsc:lo~ure 1nder the A.oot1101 Cllclll Prififcg,:, f~c Ak<>n,ey Worlt PIO<luet J'rivllc,,:e, the Righi of Privacy cooblnc<I in t~Calllbfllia Cons CiM.io•, •net ofher rfg6ts ond privllcJes il>M pr-tcludo dlsdoll•~ orcoalidolial W.,-lioo. TIie bdllnnollon hi th& menage m.1}' •lso be Jl"ICCctcd by the Elednink Coonnmi!<1lioas f'rlvacyAct. 18 lJSC S.cliooa 1510·2~11. Iftbe re.aderoftllis mess11:e It llol lhc IJJtclldecl 11ecipicDt..>'OII-he~y ootlGed tbat all)' dis$eJU!lla.tlon. dit'fril>utlo11 or cop:,oQJ of lU, oemoiun.:,lloo Is sCric(fJ pn,ldli<ted. 1t10u Jr.lye cecelved Uois commulllcatkm To emir, please ~di:ltiely notify tt,e ••oder by re tum e-mail or at the tclepllone 1Wt11ber above alld de!ece Ille original meuagc. ---Forwarded Message --Subject:RE: Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 21.45.060re RD-MZ.Ones Date:Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:00;52 +0000 Frorn:Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov> ,To:Jobn Bailey <jbailey@hallandbailey.net> CC:Kathi Lacroix <kgreenough@hallandbailey.net>, Olen Van Peski <Glen. VanPeski@carisbadca.gov>, Don Neu <Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>, Morgen Fly <Morgen.Fry@carlsbadca.gov> Mr. Bailey, Attached is my response to your October 5 email and September 15 letter plus an attachment refereJlced in 10/7/2015 2:18 PM 0007 I I I t ) RE-: Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 21.45.060 re RD-M Zones ,~ 4of4 • , ' ' ? .:i • .. ,. • f 'i-.· _'/ the response. Thank you. iP';.c· .e ''---' t!f0.1 Carlsbad Scott Donnell Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-602--4618 I 760-602-8560 fax I sc-0ttdonnell@carlsbadca.gov From:John Bailey [mailto:jbailey@hallandbailey.net} Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 3:04 PM To: Scott Donnell Cc: Kathi Lacroix; Manager Internet Ernail; Glen Van Peski; Don Neu Subject: Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 21.45.060 re RO·M Zones Mr. nonneJJ, . Almost three weeks has now passed since • sent you my Jetter dated September 15. 201.S (see attached) and I have not yet received any _response from you to oty letter. It wo~d be greatly appreciated if you woufd send to me, without further delay, the infonnation requested under items 1, Z. 3 & 4 on pages 2-3 of my attache<J lettei: I would think the information requested would have been readily available and relatiVcly easy to produee and provide. If there some reason you are unable to provide .-u the infonoation requested now than please send me what you can and let me-know when I ID'.ty expect receipt of the remaining information. · Thank you, John JollllBailey LawOl!iccs ofB'~lt & Bailey 25014 Las Uris;as So~th, Suitt B Murrieta, CA 9ZS6Z (9.51) 304-7566 Ollicc (9S1)304-7571 Fas Jb!'ll9@wll!llJJ<ib.1l11:)'.J!et -CONFIDENTlALITV NOTTCE: 'l'llc information conlafncUro Utls cfccltonlc m:all m,ssage Is coo1i4cnlilll lnll>nlt.llion i?tcnl!ed uoly llir tile use otthc :lndl-irld,ull or entity to ,lflom ic is ~ncled to he directed. The sen if er otthls rnC$$2ge Is ft Mcml>cror1hc Slat!: Bar of C.6fomia, and i.b con1e11ts msy be pdvl!cge,l lh:,m dlsclosore lll\derlflc Atto1'111::)' Cllcn! Privllegc, the Attorney Work Produ,:t Privilege, !be Right of Pnl'tl'<Y coinaloed io the Ca!lfoml,l_ Constitution, ~nd olbertil;tns..,,,1 pmile::e.s that preclpdc disclosu~ ofconftdcotialiltlb.multfon.. The infonnaliou w <his message mayalso,bc protecwd by the Elcµronic Co)llll>tmicatioos l'rivacy Act, IS USC Scciioos 2S10-2521. ffchc reader of !his Ple$Sage is not the i11te-t1de<I n:oi()icnt, you are hereby noli!ied wt.any dlsseml112tlon, .r,millulion otcopyillg ofrbis communication is strictly p,Obibited. lfyoa h<1ve rccc;,.ed this communication in error, please im111cdfatcly nolil:f the under by n:turn e-m11lt or at Ille tclcpb.ooe numbcnbovc ,nd delete flic original ,m:ss:,ge. 10/7/2015 2:18 PM 0008 I ! t ' I l I ~ I I i I I i i I I t I f f I fl ______ .............. -.. ~-· ·······-····--- 0 Honorable Matt Hall, lvf.ayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP 25014 Las Brisas Road South, Suite 8 Murrieta. California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304·7566 Facsim~e: (951) 304-7571 November 5, 2015 --·-•·. ~ .. ----···· 0 Re: Municipal Code Section 2 ~.45.060/General Development Standards for RD-M Z.Ones Dear Honorable Mayor Hall: I have not received from you any response to my October 8. 2015-letter concerning the above-referenced matter. Enclosed you will find a chain of em~ls between myself and qty staff conce.ming the Village and Barrio Master Plan and related parking issues fro~ October 13 through November 5, 2015. I am working hard to address all these issues pertaining to zo.n.ing. new developments, parking requirements, etc .• with City staff. However, as you can see from the enclosed emails, candid transparency appears to be an issue. Would you or one of your fellow Council members please contact me to schedule an infonnal meeting to discuss these issues in more depth. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. JLB:kg Enclosure cc: (all cc's with enclosure) Honorable Keith Blackburn Honorable Mark Packard Honorable Lorraine Wood Honorable Mic!1ael Schumacher Kathy Dodson, City Manager Barrio Neighbors (via email only) Sincerely, 0009 ' I r) \ : ., + •••••• .., •• _,, ....... ___ .... ,. ' Carlsbad Zoni,ng &Master Plan/// Pacifi~"""pdProject (SDP 15-18) ' ,j of8 Subject: Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/// Pacific Wind Project (SOP 15-18j From: John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> Date: 11/5/2015 10:32 AM To: Scott Donnell <scottdonnell@carlsbadca.gov>, Jason King <jking@doverkohl.com> CC: Corey Funk <corey.funk@carlsbadca.goV>, Austin Sifva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov>, Glen Van Peski <glen.vanpeski@carlsbadca.gov>, Don Neu <don.rteu@carlsbadca.gov>, Kathy Dodson <manager@carlsbadca_gov>, Kathi laCroix <klacroix@tblgfaw.com> Scott & Jason, Austin informed me that he was not aware of any suggested or pending proposals to reduce the current number of resident and/or vfsitor required parking spaces for the area in _ and around the Pacific Wjnd Project other than what I " ... will see with the draft plan coming out on Nov. 16 .. " Apparently there are some proposed code revisions to the parking requtrements foi: the Village and Barrio in the new Master Plan. I have to believe that Scott has krlown the substance of these proposed revisions for several months. However, instead of just simply providing me with the available Information on these proposals Scott has been, since September 10, 2015, sending me on "wild goose chases'' to the City's web site, Corey Funk, community meetings, other city staff, et~. to try and determine what Is being proposed. Please send me the sections in the new M_aster Plan far the proposed code revisions relating tQ any suggested changes to the required visitor and resident parking spa<:es on new or existing developments in th~ Village & Barrio. Thanks, John ·~•(>LEASE NOTE NEW !M.MLADDRllSS AN)) li11lM NAME.•"" .fol>nlb",lcy T.be llni!ey teg,:,.1 Group :25014 L-,s JM1;:as Soutft, Suite n Murmta, CA 92562 (9Sl)3M-7566 Offi«: (9Sl}J04-7S71 1la1. jba,lc)@tblgfa,v.co tn CONFl'.DENTlALtn' NOTICE: Tlie informalion mnbmcd i1> (his efocm,nic soaitn;ess,,;c is conlldco1r.ll fnfonn,ilio,. iatendcd only fur lhe use of the indiVJdu;,I or-en(j(y to ,mom l(is ln1"'1cl<d robe din:cted. 'l'he senderortbis ,.,css::oge is aMcm!>uortbe St•fe lbrofCaUJomiia, aod Its cor.tcncs m:ry be privileged Imm di<dosure under the At1ot11eyCl~11t l;'rivilcee, tbe AUorne:,Worl<l'md•cl Privilege, t~e Rightofl'rivuyeonr:,ioed in ll,e Calill>nm Co11Stitutio11, ru,d otlloc nghll1 and privikgcs l!tl!tpl1'du4c disclosun: ofconfidentialinlimn,ifio_n. The ililonn:tlioo ii, tltis ~~• nQy'Slls1> be protected by the elecironic Communication£ Pri~acyAc418 USC Sectll)II$ 25l0-1S2t. Jrtl,c reoderoflhls mcssag.c is notl?!e inle!Jdcd.rccipicnt, yottarc hc:rcby n otified tt>,,t noy disseminlltioo, uirtribution 01·copyit1C oflftis e01nmouio:1tion ic strictly prohibited. If you ,,.vc n,-cd llti! common.it:ttioq in cmH; plcue lrnme<liatcty nOrily the .sender by n,tum <-mail or ~t (he klcphonc nombcr Rbovc ••d dckte lb~ on;irull rnasng<- 11 rc.l?n1I:"""·.._ ... ""' 0010 .... ··-. -.. ---....... -...... -. 0 Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/// Pacific)~-vd Project (SOP 15-18) 1 ------Forwarded Message-.- () ...... ,,--,/-·--··- Subject:Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/// Pacific Wind Project (SOP 15-18) Date:Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:23:53 -0800 From:John Bailey <jbaHey@tblglaw.com> To:Scott Donnell <scott.donnell@catlsbadca.gov> CC:Jason King <jking@doverkohl.com>, Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.goV>, Corey Funk <corey.tunk@carfsbadca.gov>;.Kathi LaCroix.<klacroix@tblgJaw.com>, Glen Van Peski <Glen.VanPesk.i@carlsbadca.gov>, Don Neu <don.neu@carlsbadca.goV>, Kathy Dodson <manager@carlsbadca.gov> Scott, Thank you for the update below. I wilf search for the Village and Barrio Master Plan on the City's website starting November 16, 2015, and look forward to reviewing that proposed Plan. I have now completed my initial investigation and review·ofthe relevant i!lformation on the Barrio and ViJlage referenced in and/or available on the City's website, including but not limited to, the: (1) "Barrio Carlsbad Community Coheslon Report" dated June 2008, referencing the Interstate 5 North Coast Quarter Project; (2) "Carlsbad Community Vision/November 2009;" (3) the 2/26/13 '~City of Carlsbad-Agenda Bill" and all related exhibits and Planning Commission minutes, etc.; (4) the "Land Use Concepts, January 2012" for the City; (5) the 12/4/14 "Ground Worl<Toward a Village and Barrio Master Plan-." issued by Dover, K(?hl & Partners. Although the roughly 10 inch stack of documents were helpful in giving me a general understanding of the history and future broad "vision" for the Barrio and Vrllage, the materials were essentially void of any specific plans, ideas or proposed resolutions to the parking issues and chalfenges confronting our community. For e,rample, the 12/4/14 Groutad Work Toward a Village and Barrio Master Plan states: "Manage parking, don't solve. Parking is an Tssue that is often talked about and negotiated. Suburban parking standards often · result in an over-supply of parking as each building and business must provide enough parking for the busiest day of the year. If suburban parking standards are applied to walkable places, such as Carlsbad Village, then the character of the Village would be lost due to too many parking lots •.. " (Page 28 ofDover, Kohl & Partners Report} The Report goes on to further state: "lnterc~pt Parking. Pressure is taken off the East-West mads by intercepting c;ars from 1-5 and from the East, giving ---···· .. ·---........ I I I ofS 11 rc::no,c""··..,, o ... r 0011 u •..... .,.-... ,.--. .. ~ .... ------·· .. • .J, .... .!.-... .. -----~,. ~ .... -... -. ,,_ • -·••u,,_, ____ ••••..,__ __ _ . . Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan /// Pacificr"·t Project (SDP 1S-18) .-··) 3 of8 them a chance to park · before penetrating the core of the Village or reaching the beach. Visitors can then walk, bike or use a shuttle to access these destinations. Some of the benefits to intercepting the parking include: * Intercepts cars before-they reach the Village center • Reduces the amount of car traffic In the heart of the Village and * Creates choices for movementthroughout the Village." (Page 29 of Dover, Kohl & Partners Report) . . Whife l understand, from my review of all the documents, the general desire to reduce the business parking requirements in ~he downtown Village area, by doing so you will exacerbate an already difficult parking problem in the surrounding area. Clearly by reducing the busrness parking requirements in the downtown Vilfage you are going to naturally force visitors and business invitees to park in the surrounding neighborhoods which are already over burdened and. do rrot meet the current everyday needs of the existing residents in the area. Couple that with a possible .reduction in the number of visitor and resident parking spaces .now required under the curre·nt municipal code for new residential developments and the City wifl create an intolerable and·frustrating parking crisis for all the busfness owners, residents and their guests in the Vinage and Barrio communities. We are very interested to see how the parking standards for the businesses and residences. in the Barrio and the Village are going to change,. if at aft, under the proposed new Village & Barrio Master Plan. - Once again 1 repeat the requests made in my ernails of October 13 and October 23 that you and Jason King please tel.I me if there are now any suggested or pending proposals to revise any of the Municipal Codes to reduce the current number of resident and/or visitor required parking spaces for newly proposed and/or existing deveJopments in the Barrio and the Village, as welt as the Pacific Wind Project. If the answer to that is no, then simply say-so. f-fowever, if there are some suggestions or proposals, I would apprecrate you providing that information to me as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to receiving a prompt reply to my Inquiries. John •••l'tl!:ASll NOTE NEW 6!11All.AOl>ll6SSANI) FIRM NAM«t.••• Jol\tt:Balley The :B.-.ley l.cg:ol Cn>up lSO 14 us Bris..s South, Suite 8 Mumct~. CA ?2562 (951)304-7566 0~ (9SJ)J04-7S7l l'.u jboiler@tbl!fo."'rom CONli'll>ENTIAtJT\' NOTICE: TI,c Tnrol'!lL•liM cont•ined i11 this cle<:lrontc 01,il m=:,gc is ton~dentl~l ln!bnuntjao iolcnded only for the use orchc 11/5/2015 10:43 AM 0012 I I I I I ~ [ I f I 1 ~ ! I i < ; j f l ! ·-----11 ...... ~ .. ----·-.... _ ··-··--.... ,4"······---·"·"--·.-· ·-·· . --·---_, ___ _ 0 0 ~--· .. ----···· ,............. . ··--·--·-........... ··----··· ... , --·---~---,,--····-· ··-·'·---Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/// ?acific{~jd Project (SOP 15-18) tof8 Individual orcnrity lo nfiom itis inccnded 10 be dirccCcll. ·n,c sendcrofrliis mcssaic Is.> ~kmbcr ortJ,c St,,cc Jl•rofC•!ifomb, •ud ilS <oncens.s may l)< ptivilcte<I fto!l' cfisclosun: u11<l~r rite i',l1omcy Cllcnl rrivilc:c, Ch~ AHonx.y Wod4 Producc PrivlJ~e. the tl~hl ofl'rlviKyonot•iMtl in lht-C~li/i>rnia Oinslitutioh, and odrcrrigbls tftd J)ffililegcs that pt'C<11'1fc diiclosun-ofconlidcu1ml Wilmiation. T/ic lalonrr.dioo i• tbit message DQY~lso lie protected by t~ ltlcc!:'!l!l!c Co~DW'Jtulol\S Priv.11ey l\cf, 18 !.!SC S:cGoas 2SIO-b"ll.1f1he rcl!dcroftbi2 iHnagc is trot the imr.l!cd rccipl<at. "JOY -ltc:N!b)' notified 1b:it .any d",s$cminatlon, clistnoutlo,1 or copying ofcJ,is t'.Ommtmicadaais 11tidJyprobiliilcd. l(yoa have received Chis commu.nicatlOo incn-or, please immediately polifr lk :scodcr by ref um c-m:ill or~t Ille tdepboot mimbc rabovc ,u,d delete lit on:inat mus~&•· --~ Forwarded Message ---Subject:RE: Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/// Pacific Wind Project {SOP 15-18) Date:Wed, 4 Nov 201517:13:51 +oooo From:Scott Donnell <ScottDonnell@carlsbadca.gov> To:John Bailey <jbailey@hafrandbailey.net> . CC:Katherine Lacroix <kgreenough@haHandba~ey.net>, 'jking@doverkohl.com' <jking@doverkohl.com>, Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov>, Corey Funk <Corey.Funk@carlsbadca.goV> Good morning, The draft Village and Barrio Maste, Plan should be available for public review by November 16. As the date gets closer, I will provide more complete information. The document is-being released only for public review. and comment and will not be considered for adoption until spring 2016. The draft Master Plan will be avaifable online. As Corey has indicated, the Master Plan will provide standards unique to the Village and Barrio ne.ighborhoods. As the draft will be available for public review, your comments will be welcome. Regards, (:Cityof Carlsbad Scott Donnell Senfor Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-602-4618 f 760.ti02-8s6o rax I scott.donnen@carlsbadca.gov From: Austin Silva Sent; Friday, October 23, 2015 12;09 PM To: John Bailey; Corey Funk; Jason King; Scott Donnell Cc: Katherine Lacroix Subject: RE.: Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/ f J Pacific Wind Project (SOP l.S-18) 1 l/5/201510:43 AM 0013 I --. -·--•·· .. -·-.,. ' ----. ., ________ __,_ ... ·---·· .. .. ' .. -, .. --· ....... ,. ,.. . ....... ' ... ,.-;.._..,._,. __ -_, .... _,_ .. -- Garis bad Zoning & Master Plan I I I Pacifict•Jd Project (SDP 15-18} 5of8 John, As-Corey stated below, any changes to parking ifftheVHlage and Barrio will be done thiOugh the_ new Village and Barrio Master Plan which will be available for public comment later this year. Austin Silva;AICP Associate Planner P: 760-602-4631 City of Ca rlsbad Planning Division from; John Bailey (maflto:ibailey@hallandbajley.netJ Sent: Friday, October 23, 201511:23 AM To: Corey Funk; Jason King; Soott Donnell; Austin Silva Cc Katherine Lacroix. Subject: Carlsbad Zoning-& M;:ister Plan If/ PacificWlnct J>'roject (SDP 15-18) Corey, Your " ... points or clarification.-" bel~w were very belpful .• Pnrticufarly'yourexptaoation concerniog the division of re.spoosibt1itles. This ·will dcfioitety assist me in directing my in.quires to tbe City Pe~onnel who are actually overseeing the specific project with whicl1 l have concerns or questions. From your explanation it appears clear that the cify wide "Zoning Ordina~ce Update" process you aN cUJTentty working on will aot in any way effect or concern the Village and Barno communities orthc Pacific Wind Project. Please let me know if my understanding on this point is incorrect in anyway. .Tas~n, Scott :ind Austin: Now that Corey has provide me with a good exp!.alll\tion on tfle division t>f responsibili~cs would each or )'OU p!ease separately conru-m with me that you are not aware of any suggested, (llAQned or pending proposals to revise any or the municipal codes to reduce the cumlot number of required resident and/or visitor patlci11g spaces for eXisting-0r new devclop01ents in the Village, Barrio and/or for the Pacific Wind Project. If any of you Me 1nyare-0f any suggested., planned or pending proposafs than please provide me with that iJlfonnation. Thanks, John Jobn~•ilc1 The Bailey IA,pl Group zsm,t L<ls Brisas Sl>utl), Suite B Murrieta CA. 92'562 (9Sl) 304-7566 Ollicc (951) 304•7571 F,t~ Jtr.iilc,@h•ll•n<lll•il•y.neJ C0N¥IDKN1.1ALlTV NOTICE: Tbc inl'onnatlon oori(~incd in 11\ls elecnonrc mxtlmcss:,g• k coofidcntfal inlbnnation in(cnJcd oltly lb, (h,c use ofltic individual orcnticy to whom 1t;,; inlendc<l !o be dfrecll!ft '.(he ,endcrofH1is niess,:c is a Mcm~rofthe St,,cc B~rorC,lilbmi.-.. ,nd its rontents rnay be privilcgetl li-om diselos11.n> 11JJdcr ~ AKon1ty Oie nt ftivi1cgc, the Allonicy Work Product rrMloee, Ifie Rightof Priv~cy cont>;ncd in 1hc CaflforniJ Consritut!oµ, Md other rights A,id priv~<2•• U1al 11ttduc!e d-.dMuno<>f conlidc,tlW inloml>tl~11. The infonrultiouin this message m,,y also be protected Ly Ilic F:lccoook Co1t1m11n,lc>tions rmi,cy Ac!, 18 llSC Sel:lions 2Sl 0-2S21. lfl/1c ttaderoflbis mess~gc ,is 1,01 Ille iotemlca recipleur, Jon,an, hcroby nofiliett thaJ ~rt)' ir.Jisscmin::.tf(U\i distribution 41r~oP.]'iTig o(tbis c:o~Oldnk:~tion is s-trictl_y prohibited. lf)'OU 1'1~·c n:c,ivc-d lMs-~Omtnunfc:iition in en-or; please iminedJatcly ooti(y die s~n~crby n,1um e-mail or ~t th, 1clcp~ouc .n.,rnlxnboW llJld Belote lftc on:loal mtSS'lge ------Forwarded Message --- 1115/201510:43 AM 0014 0 Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/// Pacific:·-,d Project (SDP 15-18) ,,:•) ( Sof8 ' ' I Subject:RE: Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/// Pacific Wind Project (SDP 15-18) Date:Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:33:.25 +0000 From:Corey Funk <Corey.Funk@carlsbadca.gov> To:John Bailey <jbailey@hallaodbailey.net>. Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov> CC:Jason King <iking@doverkohJ.com>, Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbad(.ct.gov>, Kathi LaCroix <kgreenough@hallandbailey.net> John, Thanks for your patience In my response. Regarding the item below that you addressed to me. you are correct that we are just at the beginnrng of the Zoning Ordinance Upda~ proces-s, with work anticipated to begin this fall oo this project. I would like to answer your questions and provide some points of clarification. As you a re aware, there are two separate city-initiated projects underway that have the potential to affect the parking standards whitj1 apply to development projects-the Village & Barrio Master Piao and the Zoning Ordinance Update. The ZOnfng Ordinance Updat.e process will include the evaluation and potential updating of development standards that apply citywide, except within the boundaries of the Village and Barrio area (and other appHcable master plans and specific plans). The Village & Barrio Master Plan will indude development standards that apply only within the boundaries of the Village and Barrio area. As currently being drafted, the Village & Barrio Master Plan wifl replace the RD-M zoning in the Barrio with new zoning that fs specific to the master plan. Along with the proposed new zoning, new land use standards (in dud in~ requirements for parking) are also planned that will be unique in many respects to the Vnfage and Barrio. The master plan draft will be released before the ·end of the year for public revfew and comment. One aspect of the zoning Ordinance Update will be the evaluation and updating of existing standards for parking, and this could result in proposals to either reduce or increase the amount of parking required for . certain development t)lpes. ~ny development standards revised as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update would only apply to future development projects outside of the Village and Barrio area. As you are aware, questions about the Village & Barrio Master Plan should be directed to Scott Donnell, and questions about the Pacific Wind project should be directed to Austin Silva. If you have follow-on questions about the Zoning Ordinance Update, please direct those to me. Best regards, {cityof Carlsbad Corey Funk, AICP Associate Planner Community and Economic Development Department Planning Division City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.go~ 11/5/201510:4:IAM 0015 t J l_J -------·-·-··· .. ••" " .... -....... ' .... '·-··-·· .. ···-· ... ,_ ·--.. ---------..... ---~---·-·· ...... --. --·----··---,----------... ·· Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan/// Pacific(~t Project (SOP 15-18) n 7of8 760-602-4645 I 760-602-8559 fa>< I coreyJunk@carlsbadca.gov From: John Bailey lmailto:ibailey@hallandbailey.net] Sent: Tuesday; October B, 2015 12.iB ~M To: Scott Donnell; Corey Funk Cc: Jason King; Austin Silva; Kathi laCroix Subject! Carlsbad Zoning & Master Plan II! Pacific Wind Project (SOP 15-18) Scott, I fully understand and appreciate .)'OIIJ" budget constraints so l will keep aay direct conlact I-have with Jason to an absolute minimum. 1 am still e-01Jecting, reviewing and analyzing documents so I will not give Jason an-initial call until I have completed my compilalioD aad analysis. I wm also ·copy you with all writt.en communications between Jason and myself and leave it to Jason to fill you iD on any or our telephone ronversatjons. I do appreciate your professional courtesy and cooper.it Ion in this regard. If any any time you reel my contact witJi Jason is or has become a budget p'!'Oblem for you please Jet me know. ~orey, I know Crom.Scott's .10/6/15, letter that you are in the early stages of addressing the street parking issues and updating the City ~ning Ordinances. H?wever, would you and/or Scott please teJl me if there are uow any s~ggested or peJiding proposals to revise any of the municipal codes to reduce the current number of resident and/or visitor required parking spaces for new or emting developments in the City's RD-Mzones, particular io the Barrio 2nd VIiiage communities as welt as the Barding Street Assemblage's Pacif1e Wind Project. Thank You, · .Toho John Ollllcy 1->11r Olliees orw,u & B:uky 2501-4 Las Brisu South, Suite B M urrjelll, CA !>1S62 (951) Jo,.1s66 omce (9SI) J04-7S71 Fax P,•lk;)'@l!l'lbndb,,IJsv.nc\ CONFtDENTJALttY NOTTCE; The iofonnittion conl2incd Ill Chis 4'kctroaic .m2il mu..,.gc Is confidcnllnl lnlbmu.tlon inlcodd 0<11)' for 1~e uic oftbc Jodlvidooi orcnlll)' to "ftom ii is iolcnded ~ be dfrccttd. ~ scaclcroftltis '"""II:~ is:> Member of the Stale .IIArofCaiUl>n,b, and w; ronlcnls rn.,y he pri\lilegtd fro,. dlscJosurt ooder lhl: AUOnocy Clical Mile~ lfle Atiom.oy Wotlt >'>oclud l'riviJett, 11,t Rf&h.t o/Pnvaq c:onaloed rn tke Caliromia Coostit1ttion, Md olher rig.~CS aod privi1tges tl>al pr<cladt disdosu~ orcoalidcalial iafinnAAiOCL TIie ;..(omlll(IOn In Ibis mcisaic -,,also be pn,!cct<'d by c~e Elect,on;c Co1U1DcmlC11llo11S P-mixy Ac:1, 18llSC S«tioM 2510-'ZSlf. trtl.c tttder oflb& ~sage i3 nol Ille intended tt<ipie'Q(. ,011 archCJCb)' notified (h~t ""Y disse'atin2<ion, dlstri~ation or copying ol'dtk comn,unka(ioa is s1rie1ly p,olobilcd. tf3-ou have s:ecclvcd this commalli.cadon In cm>r, please !mmcdi•ltly notify tltc sender by ~tum c-m.,U oral Ibo lelephooc au.mberabo•c and delck !he origja•I musltg•- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.a~g.com 11/5/2015 10:43AM 0016 i I I 0 0 Carlsbad Zoning &Master Plan/// Pacific('1'jd Project (SOP 15-18) () Versio!}: 2015.0.6173 / Virus Database: 4457/10952 -Release Date: 11(05/15 ·3of8 ··-·--·-,......... --... --.... --__ _. ... ··-----· . 11/S/201510:43AM 0017 I \..) \. ) ,., ______ ,.,,_.,_.._ ... ---~--.. -·-·· ' ... _ _._.., __ ,.._..,. ~, ......... ·-.. -··-·---______ -,--___ _ Planning Commission Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP 25014 Las Brisas Road South. Suite B Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304--7566 Facsimile: {951) 304-7571 November 16, 2015 Via email (Planning@ CarlsbadCA.gov) and U.S. mail Re: Draft Village & Barrio Master Plan Agenda Item No. 4 November 18. 2015 Commission Meeting Dear Commission Members: My wife and I have owned a home on Magnolia Avenue in the City of Carlsbad since app~·oximately February 2010. · It is our undecstanding that the current Municipal Code guidelines under Chapter 21.44 Table A requires "Studio and one bedroom apartments" to have "l.5 spaces/unit, one of which must be covered" and "Units with 2 or more bedrooms" to have "2 spaces/unit, one of which must be covered" and "visitor p~ng» with "PTOjects with 11 units or more ... (to have) .... 25 space per unit" In addition to the current requirements. available frontage street parking is permitted to be used in calculating the required visitor parking space (see Table C sectio_n 21.45). Over the past five years, the availability of street parking in our neighborhood has become progressively worse. ln fact, after approximately 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. every evening, there is essentially no street parking available because of the high density of residential units in the immediate area. This situation will become even more difficult with the addition of new muJti-unit projects being approved without adequate "on-site" resident and visitor parking. Since early August of 2015, I have brought the neighborhood's concems about the lack of parking to the attention of Scott Donnell. Senior Planner, and other staff members so we are confident · they are aware of our issues. I just received and reviewed the Planning Division's " ... Report To The Planning Commission" with regard to the "Draft Village & Barrio Mastec Plan" together with the re.lated Parts I (Vision & Background), Parts 2 and 3 (Code & Design Guidelines), and Part4 (Appendix). Although we believe the neighborhood will be pleased with the overaJI proposed Village & Barrio Master Plan, we do have concerns over the proposed reduction in parking requirements 0018 t l \• \ t I t i l t l I r I i l j l I I I ._ ... ___ .... _._.. .. --- • __, .... --... ___ ..,. ___ ,.J>,. -... Page Two November 16, 2015 0 0 ----·--........ -· .. ---· . referenced under Part 2, Item "G, Parking Requirement Chart" on page 6.43. Staff is recommending that the multi-dwelling parking requirements be significantly reduced to .. One space per unit for studio and one bedroom; one and a half (1.5) spaces per unit for two bedrooms or more." Furthennore, on- street parking will stiJl be allowed to be calculated into the visitor parking requirements. Substantially reducing the parking requirements in the Barrio will not in any way enhance the desirability and/or the "walkability" of the neighborhood. Io fact, by allowing new projects to be built without adequate «on-site" resident and visitor parking, it will create the op.PO,Si.te effect The surroW1di.Ii.g streets are already g{eatly overburdened with virtually no street parldng available because we now have inadequate resident and visitor parking in our neighborhoods. By increasing density and reducing parking. you will only exacerbate a currently difficult parking situation in this neighborhood. A good example of what I mention above is the proposed "Pacific Wmd Project (SDP 15-18)" which l understand was submitted to the Planning Department around the end of August 2015. This Plan currently calls for the City to vacate and abandon Harding Street and Carol Place between MagnoliaAvenueandJeffersonStreetfortbedevelopmentof (a)acompletelygatedaffordabfehousing project; (b) consisting ofapproximately 5 fbre.e-story buildings with 120 apartment units;-and ( c) calling for 21 O parking spaces when the current Municipal Code requires 255. Based upon my walks through the proposed project site, I estimate there are currently about 180 total parking spaces (mclnding garages, driveways and street) for the roughly 52 existing homes in this neighborhood, whlcb is aJready inadequate to service the azea. The developer is.only proposing to add 30 more parking spaces (180 to 210), but plans on increasing the number of available ~ by 70 (i.e., from 50 to 120). The proposed Pacific Wmd Project will be a "gated'' community so any deficient parking within the Project site will na.tmally foroethe Pacific Wind residents and visitors to park on the surrounding streets outside the Project. We strongly encourage the Planning Commission not to approve any proposed amendments to the Municipal Code which will further reduce the parlcing requirements for new developments in this already highly dense neighborhood. fn fact, we respectfully request that an amendment to Section 21.45.060 Table «c.7" be made to include the Barno as an area that is not peimitted to count on-street parking for purposes of meeting the visitor parh,g requirements for new projects. Should you have any qu(:)1ions or if you would like to discuss any of the neighborhood's concerns over these is.mes, please do not hesitate lo contact me at your earliest opportunity. JLB:kg 0019 I I I \ I I \ I 1 f. I l· t I ,, t ) ·----. -.. -~---···-··----.. -----·· ... -----·--~·-'-----···· ......... _____ .. , ~-· '---"~-- cc: Honorable Mayor Matt Hail Honorable Keith Blackourri Honorabie Mark Packard Honorable Lorraine Wood Honorable Michael Schumacher Kathy Dodson, City Manager (via email only) Austin Silva(via email only) Scott Donnell (via email only) Barrio Neighbors (via email only) 0020 ___ ....... · .. ---......... ·------..... ··------·-· ·-----· .. -__ ., _ --- 0 0 . "'' ··-.... -. -.. ·--__,, -----· ---· .. ·-·- THE BAILEY LEGAL .GROUP Hol)orable Keith Blackburn Honorable Lorraine Wood Honorable Michael Schumacher 1200 Carlsbad Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 2S014 Las 8risas Road South Suite 8 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 Facsimlle: (951} 304-7571 November 16, 2015 Re: Village & Barrio and Pacific Wind Project Dear Honorable Councjl Members Blackbum, Wood and Schumacher: This afternoon I spoke with the Honorable Mayor Matt Hall in reference to the above matters pertaining to the Village and Bairio. Unfonunately, l.heHonorableMayor Hall and the Honorable Mark Packardareapparentlydisq.naJifie d f r o m a d d r e s s i n g t h e s e i s s u e s i n t h a t i t i s m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e y o w n or have recently owned property in these areas. !also spoke with Scott Donnell late this afternoon about tho proposed new parking requirements fortheBarrioarea.. ApparentlytheproposedCodeamendments w i llreducetherequiredparkingspace s · from 255 (i.e.., 225 resident and 30 visitor) for the Pacific Wind Project, and only require a total of 165 resident parking spaces for the Project to be «code compliant" Needless to say. these new proposed parking requirements will render street paddng outside the immediate Pacific Wind Project an impossibility. I know that Scott Donnell and other members of your City staff are well aware of our neighbomood' s concerns pertaining to lhe inadequate street packing for the Barrio community. We will continue to work with City staff and the Planning Commission to address these concerns. H.owever, I feel it is important that I personally speak wi lh each of you about these issues. Would each of you please .extend to me the courtesy of contacting me at yow-earliest convenience to schedule a separate informal meeting with each of you to discuss these issues in more depth before they ultimately reach City Council foi-action. Yoiµ-anticipated courtesy and cooperation are ap V 0021 I I I Ii I t t \ I i t ---~--.. ---··-··----···· ..... -.............. .,..~,---. --., •• • •• _(. '~ -····-.. ---,,.. .... _,_ .. ,_ • ....... t ...... ~ ............ ~~ ·~· ---~ JLB:kg cc: Honorable Mayor Matt Hall (U.S. mail) Honorable Mark Packard (U.S. mail) Scott Donnell (via email only) Planning Commission (via email and U.S. mail) Barrio Neighbors (via email only) 0022 I I I ~- 0 0 '". ,h•••• ....... .. ... --~-------,<. Scott Donnell, Senior Planoer City of Carlsbad --·'"1. .' ) ' . THE°BAILEY LEGAL GROUP 25014 Las Brisas Road South, Suite B Murneta. C.arifomia 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566· Facsimile: (951) 304-7m December 22,2015 Community and Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue () Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Via email and U.S. mail Austin Silva,AICP, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Jason King Dover Kohl & Partners 1571 SunsetDrive Coral Gables. FL 33143 Re: Carlsbad Zoning{ViUage & Barrio Master Plan Pacific Wind Project (SDP 15-18) Dear Scott, Ansdn and .Jason~ Via email and U.S. mail Via email and U.S. mail As all of you already know, my wife and l have owned a home in the Barrio since February ~O IO, and have an inte~ in the issues raised concerning the above referenced matters. During October through early November 2015, J completed an investigation and review af the relevant infoITDation on the history, conditions,stalus, future plans and visions for the Barrio and Village that were referenced in and/or available on the City's website, including but not limited to, the: (1) "Barri.o Carlsbad Community Cohesfon Report dated June.2008, Interstate 5 North Coast Conidor Project''; (2) "Carlsbad CommllJlity Vision/November 2009"; (3) the 2/2~/13 "City of Carlsbad-Agenda Bill" and all related exhibits and Planning Commission minutes. etc.; ( 4) the "Land Use Concepts, January2012" for the City; and (5) the 12/4/14 "Ground Work Toward a Village and Bar,io Master Plan_," issued by Dover, Kohl &Partners. I have now read though the roughly 250 page draft of the November 2015, "Village and Barrio Master Plan" ("Plan") that was made public in or aroundtheseoond weekofNovember2015. I also attended some public forums and community meetings on December 15, 16, and 17 where Scott. members of Dover, Kohl & Partners and/or other consultants presented the Plan and responded to some questions l and other community members had concerning certain aspects of the P.Jan. 0023 --~· ~--------·-· ............. ----·-...... -,----~ ..... -.......... "·----~ .... ---~ ) Page2 December 22, 2015 As I mentioned at these December 2015 community meetings. there are a few main areas of concern I have regarding the draft Plan that we need to address relating to: a) reduced parking requirements for new · developments; b) the Pacific Wind Project viewed in light of the Plan and some ideas regarding pedestrian and bicycle access pojnts; and c) the projects d1ai will be added to the "Minor Review Permit" that only require the review and approval of the City Planner. Alt.iough the above concerns were touched upon in the community forums, there was really no opportuo ityto address these issues in depth. Therefore I will discuss these issues and concerns in more detail below and then provide you with my comments, stigg.estions and recommendations regarding !he draft Plan. PARKING REQUIREMENTS A. Ex1sting And Future Needs. Preliminarily, as mentioned by Scott a couple of times at the community meetings, this is a "long term" plan and will probably not be re-vjsit:ed again for 20 or more years. For that reason alone, it is extremely important that we get it right and not replicate the same mistakes of neighboring beach cities. The dratt Plan does not mention or discuss in any meaningful way the generally accepted premise that Southern California residents are still, by necessity. car-dependent and seldom utilize mass transit for everyday travel. There is a notation in the Plan that through 2008 to 2012 '' ... 85% of workers 16+ get to work by car ..• " and spend " .. .28.6 minutes travel time to worL" (See Plan Part 1, pg. 1.13) without any real · discassion or projections on whether or not this trend wm increase, decrease or stay the same. . ,. In fact, in 2008-2009 less than 4% oft.he San Piego-CM!sbad-San Marcos work force used public transportation to get to work (Google: Public Transportation Usage Among U.S. Workers; 2008 and 2009 October 20 I 0, US Census Bureau, page 6).Asof2013, about 4. I% of San Diego's working population used the public Transit System [see Andrew Keatts (btw://www.voiceofsandiego.org/author/andrewkeatts/ Ao gust 6. 2013). In 2013, there was an estimate~ population in the entire 92008zipoode for Carlsbad ofabout26,,536. In 20 I 3T the "mode of transportation to work in Zip Code 92008" was: a)79.2% drove a car alone; b) 6.0% carpooled; c) 03% motorcycle; and d) 8.9%. worked at hotne. Only 2.6% took the bus (0.8%) or train/subway ( 1.8%) ( see Google search: "92008 zip code detailed profile city data.com" pg. 20). In other words, 85.5% of Carlsbad's popuJation in 92008 utilize private -o-ehicles or motorcycles to get to work versus 2.6% who use pubJfo transit. My ove,rall impression was that none of the retained consultants that worked With the City to draft the Plan who attended these December 2015, public forums do not dispute the general accuracy of the above population figures and/or the percentages of residents who commute with private vehicles versos those-who use mass transit It is my understanding that the Barrio, as of December 5, 2012, already had about 1,272 existing residential dwelling units and that number could potentially increase byanother759 units under the2/26/13 "City of Carlsbad-Agenda BiJll' approved by the City C<mncil (See Exhibit 8, pg. 159 Item A, par. J to 2126113 Agenda Bill). 0024 I l I j I I I 0 0 - - & ·-··· --~-•• -•• --·- .. .., ) Page3 December 22, 201 5 Assuming that about one-third (252) of the t.ota! (759) projected units are one.-bedroom, and two-thirds (507) consist of two plus-bedroom units, the parking needs under tf1e existing code O 1.44.020 Table A) would require I.,392 resident and 190 visitor (1-,582 totaJ) additional parking spaces to adequately accommodate the expected need and demand. Under the draft Plan's new proposed code structure, there would be no required visitor parking aod only 1,013 total on-site resident parking spaces required to serve demand. Unfortunately, tho residential street parking io the Barrio is already tax.ed to its limits. The addition of another potential 759 imits-withoutrequiring developers to provide sufficient "on-sited resident and visitor parking will not only render the street parking in the area completely inadequate to setVe the residents, but unmanageable as well. It is not believed that the current commuter percentages in the Village and Barrio are any different from the 85% average throughout the rest of the 92008 zip code; nor is there any iD<lication that these percentages wilJ change in any significant way over lite oext couple of decades. Furthermore with the expected addition of another759 units in the Barrio aJone there is clearly notonly a present but a future need to at least maintain (not reduce) the current resident and visitor parking space requirements for new developments in the Village and Barrio. Merely because Dover, Kohl & Partllers and/or the other city consultants may have a desire to induce or incentivize developers to build in the Village and Barrio does not m<Wl parking will not be needed to serve the residents who wiH and do live in these new and existing developments. l finnfy believe the draft Plan's proposed "Mobility Management District~ should be the entity designated to review these population movements on an ongoing basis. If and when these resident commuter trends realign to meaningfully shift the now lopsided balance from private vehicles to mass transit, th~ Village and Barrio parkiog st21ndards can be revisited and reduced or modified according to expecred need. However, for now and the foreseeable future, all new developments should be designed and coostrncted to accommodate the actual projected parking needs for each project. B. Growing Parking Problems And Concerns. Particularly troublesome is one of the premises of the P Ian that, "Parking should be managed and leveraged ·throughout the Village and Barrio. and .not necessarily solved for each individual parcel or business" (Plan J>art l, item 4, pg. 23). Although this stateme.nt indirectly acknowledges that parking is a concern in the communify, the Plan essentially dismisses the concern and instead leverages the issue as a reason to implement code revjsions to encourage future development; with little or no regard for the negative impactssuchsubstandarddesignrequiremeotsforlheseoewdevelopmen1swillimposeuponfii.ecurrentand future residents aod business owners in the Village and Barrio communities. In fact, J recall that about 70% of all the people who attended the December 2015 community meetings affinned that the Jack of parking is a growing concern for the residents and business owners in the Village and Barrio. However, instead of establishing policies that wilJ slow down or prevent the problems from getting worse, the Plan actually proposes uew development standards that will onty worsen the already difficult street parking shortages throughout the entire area and, in particular, ·the .Barrio and the resjdential neighborhootls that sunound the downtown Village. It appears to be somewhat disingenuous to propose the establisJ1ment of a bMobility Management District" to oversee and manage parking when the overall recommendations in the Plan are to materially 0025 f I I. I ! I .. a I I u u .,C----------·-··,-l • , •--'•_.H,. ..,_,, ._ __ •• ------. ·-------.. ·------···----~~---1-,-!.---.___...._. __ - ,:"'=··.\ : ,.1 Page4 December 22, 2015 reduce the "on site" parking space re.quirements below what is actually ne.eded to adequately serve new developments; which in tum will create an area wide scarcity of street parking which is already inadequate to serve and satisfy current demand. It is analogous to starting a forest fire at the same time you est,ablrsh a fire district to manage the area. Unfortuna1Bly by Che time the district is organized and ready to commence its work the forest has already been decimated. We cau understand your desire for the Pian not to focus on solving parking problems " ... for each individual parcel or business:'' However, the parking space reductions proposed in the draft Plan wiH do· nothing butirreversiblyextend the severity of the current residential street parking shortages throughout the entire Vtllage and Barrio neighborhOO<ls. The policies suggesred in tli.e Plan on this issue appear to make no sense whatsoever unless one of the m1derlying goals is to really create street parking shortages so that the Mobility tv.tanag~ent District would have a basis to install street parlcing meters to establish and generate another revenue stream by implementing '' •.• parking time limits, pricing Qr other regulations based on demonstrated need." (Pl.an, Part l Item l buUet point 5, pg, 2.50). m fact, based upon a few comments mad.e by some of the consultants at the December forums, 1 was left-with the impression that the consult.ants believe that requiring paid parking is something that would be very beneficial to the city. Aside from any potentially unclear agendas, it is obvious that the Plan is proposing substandard parking requirements-in the Village and Barrio only to incentivize developento come in and build (See Plan, Item 1, pg. 3 .5 thru !tem l, pg. 3 .6). Although l have raised this issue with Scott and Jason a couple of times, neither-of you have really pointed to anything in the Plan that provides some other explanation for-these reduced development standards llllder the code other than to lower development costs. · · · · ·Even assuming such incentives are actually needed (which they are not) for developers to build in this highly desirable beach community;tlierearecertainlybettermethods (i.e., reduced pennitfees, property taxes, capital imj,rovement costs, increased building heights, etc.) to encourage such future development other than just simply reducing conS'!fuctio_n and ~esign standards to lower development costs. In fact, the Plan actually states that "Parking below grade·or in structures should be encouraged on commercial or larger residential projects but should be screened from. street frontages with liner buildings or b.abitable fust floorspace" (See Plan. Part 3 Item 3, pg. 7.11 ). "A new senior housing complex on Harding Street is an excellent example of how compact development can fit in with. the surrounding lower density neighborhood. Parking is located off the.street, ·the three story building does not tower over its neighbors., and the facade presents a welf proportioned 'face' to the street" (See Plan, Part l Item 2, pg. 1.8). Although the Plan in essence acknowledges the benefits of new developments having their rosidentand visitor parking. needs met "on site," the Plan appears to place developers' interests above the communities' concerns regarding the long1e,:m negative impacts of building new projects with inadequate parking to tneet expected- need and demand. To motivate developers in these high density areas to build we could consider increasing the existing height and floor limitations for new sln!ctures to maximize density and also require adequate "on~site'' below grade or first level resident and vi.sitar parkrng. This approach to meeting on-site parking needs will create developments that still fit into the growing neigb.bo.rhood and at the same time minimize the negative rmpac~ upon the street parking around the new project It would also provide developers with the ·ability to build the 0026 ~·· .... ·-·---··----···----·· -' Page5 December22,2015 0 ...... _ •• , .... i.'·--r, ............. ~-...... - 0 ) maximum amount of units pennitted on each site which increases the return on their investment. This approach to future development and long teml planning certainly deserves more oonsideration and study. It is commonly ac.lcnowledgcd that almost eveiy Southern California beach city has significant parking.shortages and issues in their core downtown and surroonding residential commonities neuthe beach. 1n fa.ct, the City of Oceanside is now grappling with a significant lack of parking in residential neighborhoods near the beach because of coastal homes that have beea turned into condominiums. "Residents and some city officialssaythoseprojectsareinundatingbeachcommunitieswithvehiclesparkedootbestreetbecausetney don't provide enough par.king within the development." (See San Diego Union-Tnlnme Gov & Politics 9191 l 5, "City looks to tighten coastal parking rules"). Even the neighboring city of Vista has significant parking issues that are becoming progressively wo~e because of new developments. In fact ''Vista has hired consulting fum Walker Parlcingat a cost of nearly $50,000. to review the parking requirements oftnecar-<lependentcity " ... °Compaced to neighboring North County cities Vista generaJly demands more parking fur apartment and condo complexes. For example developers must provide 233 parking spots per one-bedroom apartment in Vista, but the same development in Carlsbad would call for roughly 1.8 parking spots per one-bedroom apartmeol. 0 (See Sao Diego Union-Tribune Local 12/2/15, "Vista Rethinking Parking Requirements"). The city of Carlsbad already has ooe of the lowest (J .75) one-bedroom per unit parking space requirement in San Diego County, yet the draft Plan proposes to reduce the Village and Barrio to one (1) parking space perone-bedroomunit(seePlanPart2Code, pg. 6.43). Such a substantial reduction inan area already overburdened as it is will, without any doubt, have significant and long~lasting negative impacts on the Village and Barrio. C.-Future Negative fmpacts. To truly appreciate the potential street parl<lng problems that-wilJ arise under the new Plan, a qualified consultant needs to eY..aruine tfie street parking problems that now exist in the core downtown and surrounding residential communiti,es near the beach from the city of San Diego, north to San Clemente. The current problems and issues which th.ose local communities are now deali.Qg with will also fa ll upon Carlsbad. In aH likelihood those same problems will probably be even greater in Carlsbad because the . recommended reduced parking standards in the draft Plan will be significantly below the current code standards m those surrounding cities. This issue clearly needs to be studied nuther before any of the parking standards set forth in the draft Plan are finalized and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. A good example of the real potential impact of these suggested Plan code changes is the proposed "Pacific Wind Project (SDP 15-18)" ("Project") which was submitted to the Cily Planning Department around the end of A ugust2015. Th is Pro jeer currently calls for lhe City to vacate and abandon Harding Street and Garol Place between Magnolia Avenue and Jefferson Street for the development of: (a) a completely gated affordable housing project; (b) consisting of approximately 5 tl1ree-story buildings with 120 apartment units; and ( c) caJ liog for 210 parking spaces wheo the cnmmt Municipal Code requires 255. Attached is a "Sample of Local Minimum Parking Requirements" ("Parking Summary'') which I prepared that summarizes the general minimum parking requirements for a similar 120 unit {30 one-bedroom, . . -_..,.,, .. _ ... _,,_, .... l I 1 ! l I I ' I 0027 .. ---·------------~-._, ·~ ___ .. _._ ....... ------ P~ep December 22, 2015 30 two-bedroom and 60 three-bedroom) f}roject i.o Carlsbad under the existing codes and draft Plan and compares them to some other surroonding beach.cities. As can be seen by the attached Parking Summary, the difference between the new code revisions under the Plan to reduce the parlong space requirements in comparison to the current standards set in other surrounding cities will be significant. Based upon these comparnble numbers it ls easily foreseeable ~d tmdeniable that the proposed parlopg requctions in the Plan wiU have serious negative impacts on the availability of residential street parking in the Villag-e artd Barrio area which already is inadequate to meet current demands. I believe the area-specific smndards reflected in the Parking Summary now used in the City of San Diego, particularly for the beach area. deserve some study and consideration b~fore any final decision is made on the reduced standards now proposed in the Pfan. 1n fact, as you can.see by the attached Parking Summary, if the new Code revisions proposed under the P [an are implemented, Carlsbad will, without a doubt, have the lowest per unit parking space requirement -of any beach city in San Diego County. The negative effect of such a low standard, in light of what is taking place fo the surrounding communities, are not only foreseeablo but obvious. I cannot see how any reasooabJe person wotild want to bring such problems and issues on their community, which will directly affect the quality oflife of all of Carlsbad's residents and business ?wners. Furthermore, the Plan appearsto eliminat.l) completely the currently required garage and covered car space standards for all single family and multifamily units established under 21.44.020, Table A of the Municipal Code. Instead, the draft Plan simply allows "tandem parking'' with no required garages o:r covered car spaces (See .Plan, Part2 -C.Ode pgs. 6.43 -6.44). I see no reasonable or rational basis set forth ·in the Plarr indicating any reasons why garages and covered ca:r spaces should be eliminated for new residential developments in the Village and Barrio, other than to reduce development costs. It is acknowledged that Pacific Wind, as an affordable housing Project, may be entitled to the possib"ly lower required parl<lng_space standard of approximately 21 () spaces un..der Municipal Code section-. 21.86.090 Table E. However, ~ere.is no discernible factual basis or reasons set out in the Piao which presents any reasonabJe justificatiQ~ fotthe blanket reducti-0n ofall parking standards for new developments in tl1e Village and Barrio other than to motivate developers to build substandard structures at the expense of local business owners arid residents being forced to endure the tong-term negative consequences of such substa1;1dard developments. fn fact. Carlsbad's statutory scheme of codes and ordinances as set forth an,d/orreferenced in Chapter 21.86 of the Municipal Code appears to be more than adequate to stimulate builders to develop affordable housiog in these communities. The Pfan however proposes to reduce the parking requirements for all new developments below even those standards already established for affordable honsin,g with no reasonable explanation or justification. The Pacific Wind Project is at or near the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street, whic)J is the only mail~ access point off Tamarack Avenue into the Barrio from the south. Although one can also access the Barrio from the south off Tamarack Qnto Hibiscus/A.nchor Way, that access pointactually feeds into Jefferson Street. rt does not take a tremendous amount of foresjght to uodersmnd and appreciate the adverse impact 0028 ... ----·--·. ·--· -···--·---·· ·---~·- ~o·· "\..: 0 '_ .... --.. ··-----·--··-· --· ·, ; Page7 December 22, 2015 these reduced parking standards will have on the availability of street parking on Jeffer.on Street and the other streets around the Pacific Wind Projectifthe developer is only required to install, under the draft Plan, 165 residential (NO visitor) parking spaces to service 120 residential units, 90 of which will be two and three-bedroom units. In that the Pacific Wind Project is proposed to be a "gated" community, any deficient parkiog(which there will be) within the Project site will narurally force the Pacific Wiod residents and visitors to park on the surrounding streets outside the Project, which streets arc already overburdened. ThisevergrowingunavailabilityofresidentiaJ street parking in the Village and Barrio will naturally effect the overall desirability and walk-ability of these neighborhoods.. If the proposed building Code revisions for the Cey of Carlsbad as set forth in the draft Plan go into effect, the Village and Barrio residential parking short;iges will become illsuffemhle and irreversible. ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ISSUES D. Pacific Wind Project· Access and Walk-A.bility The overall vision and objective of the draft Plan is to make the Village& Banio communities more open, welcoming and ''walk..able." Tlie draft Plan specifically refereoces the Pacific Wind Project area and mentions some general.criterion for any future development plan that, as you can see., realigns Harding Street to essentially abut the 5 Freeway to circle the Project and to reconnect it with Magnolia Avenue and Carol Plac1 (See Plan, Part l ltem 6, pg. 2.19). The current Pacific Wind plan, however, calls for the development of a "~ed community" and the vacation and abandonmentofHarding Street and Carol Place with no "new" replacement streets. Based upon my past conversations with Austin, 1 believe City staff is currently receptive to the possibility of vacating Harding Street but wants to retain.Carol Place asa public street We.as surrounding property owners of this new proposedJ>acifi.c Wind development; have concerns and objections to any proposal calling for the City to essentially provide a gift of public land/streets to any -developer for a private "gated community." Furthennore, I am not convinced that Pa<,ific Wind's currently proposed vacation of Harding Street and/or Carol Place ,meets the generalteqoirements of Part 3 of the Streets and Highways Code Sections 8320 et. seq.; nor the "Summary Vacation" of those streets under Part4oftbeStreetsand Highways Code Sections 8330 et. seq., without requiring the dedication and construction of"new" realigned streets as recommended fo Part l Item 6 on page 2: 19 of the Plan. I have had a recent but brief telephone conversation with Todd Cottle, wllo is the Developer "contact'' for the Project conceming 1he matter. During our conversation, Mr. Cottie indicated lo me that the currently proposed plan for the Pacific Wind Project is not final~. Mr. Cottle aad l agreed to stay in contact and further discuss ow-issues concerning the Project as it progresses. At this point, however, we believe the overall neighboThood would be betterseived by the developer submitting to the City proposed amendments to the Pacific Wind plan which are more consistent with the 0029 I I I I t I I I I ) \J If ff I I· I I I· ,: 0 ·------·----··--···· .. -· ····--· ... ·-------···-------·. ---r ---··--'- Page8 December 22, 2015 concepts set forth in the draft Plan. And do not require the abandonment of any public streets wit11out a realignment, dedicatioo and development of newreplacemeotstreets. That way the Pacific Wind Project will not-only blend better into our existing neighborhood, but it wiU also insure th!:accessi.Qility and walk-ability · of the area by surrounding neighbors as well as the general public. E. Sidewalk and Bicycle Passages. One ofthe "Key Recommendations .. under the Plan isto, "ConnectMagnoliaAvenueto Anchor Way with a sidewaL~, and provide safe passage to chlr<lren heading t.o scbool." (Plan, Part ~ item ( 1 (j), pg. 2.6.) While this appears to be an eicaeUent idea. it does not seem practical in that any new pedestrian access from Magnolia to Anchor Way will require the exercise of eminent domain. This could be a costly aad time consuming process. I would suggest that these types of new pedestrian acc.ess points should stay focused on improving existing rights of way. For exampl~ r would suggest these passage ways should include connections off of Village drive and other publicly dedicated streets to1he bike/pedestrian "Coastal Rail Trairtruitnms along the train tracks next to the Barrio. These additional access points would truly enhance the walk-abil{ty of the overall area and make it more accessible to the Barno cor.nmunity. Please give fhis issue so.me further consfderation and specifically identify all potential existing public access points that appear feasible and costeffective to instaJJ as soon as tlte final Plan is ultimately approved, MlNOR REVIEW PERMIT F. Community Concerns -Lack Of Accountability . Another troublesome issue is the recommendation to add "New construction otbuilding( s) regardless of use, up to 15,000 square feet iu size, new buildings with 2-10 dwelling units, and/or ·-Changes in permitted land uses which result in site changes, increased traffic, or increased parlong requirements ... " to the list of''Minorlmprovernents" that only require the approval of the City Planner(Plao Piut 2, Item 2 (a), pg. 5.6). Although we recognize the desire and potential need of City Staff and interested developers to expedite the permitting process, rt should not be at the expense of stifling or muting the concerns of community members nor should it increase the time and expense to have those concerns heard or reviewed. Under the current Municipal Code, the final decisions to ultimately approve, reject or modify development pennits rails upon the City Council. For tne most part. the City Council and the Code has delegated a lot of that authority and responsibility to the Planning Commission. Generally speaking, the appojnted Commissioners are residents ofour rieighborhoods and have some experience or background io development and/or community issues and are at least indirectly-accountable to theoommunity they serve. Commissioners are expected to be unbiased, independent, knowiedg~ble and open minded to not onfy .I.he project being presented but aJso to tlie concerns of those residents who wilf be affected by the proposed new developments. If a community member has an issue with a particular development, he or she . can express those concerns di~ectly to the Commissioners; who for all pra{:tical purposes are an extension of the City Council who appointed them. to serve io tl1eir stead. Ifa resident-believes his/her issues we1-e not adequately addressed by the Pl$.DingCommission, then 1Je/she can pay the $1,000 plus fuand file ~_appeal to the City Council for review (Plan :Part 2,ltem 5~ pg. 5.7). 0030 '.-...... ..:---.,,. _____ .... .) J ·---:'.-.......-' 0 . 0 . -.&-L-,----~---·-·-··- ; . 1 •.. t Page9 December 22, 2015 The inclusion of the above items to the list of 0Minor Improvements>' seems to empower the City Planner to become the final arbitrator and overseer of a potentially significant numhcrofnew projects in the Village and Barrio without any input from the Planning Commission. These Administrative decisions can be reviewed by the Planning Commission only if the concerned community member pays the $1,000 plus fee to have the issue reviewed by tbeP!anning Corwrussion {Plan Part 2, Item 5. pg. 5.7). These additional items, on their face, would appear to cover a substantial amount of all new de-yeloproent in the Village and Barrio that now falls under the direct responsibility-of the Planning Commission. Many parcels (wfthoot assemblage) in the Village and Barrio are mostly smaller lots. With residential density set at 30 units per acre and a limit of up to 15,000 square feet for all new con.strnction · (residential or commercial), it would appear that a majority of all new projects io the Barrio and Village couldbeadministrativelydetenninedand/orapprovedbytheCity P l a n n e c a n d h i s s t a f f w i t h o u t a n y o v e r s i g b t or review by the Planning Commission unless an appeal is fiJed The Plan.n.ing Commission's function, purpose and responsibility is, amongott1erthiogs. to oversee the future developmentof our City. That primary responsibility should not be delegated to 8.ll Administrator or his/her staff who works very closely every day with develol)C{S to review and approve proposed building plans for recommendation to the Commission; which planner, from a practical standpoint, essentially has no ·accountability whatsoever to the residents in the community. The City Planner's primary responsibility is to review j>lans; consider community comments or concerns regarding proposed new developments; to insure the plans are in conformance with the Municipal Code and Master Plan; and to then provide the Planning Commission with a reco~ended course of action. It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to review, impartially eonsider and weigh all the infonnation presented by the Planner, Developer and Community Members on the proposed project and then decide wbeth~ or not it should be approved, modified or rejected. The Plan's suggested additions to the list for Minor Improvements not only seem to usurp the Commission's powers and responsibilities, but it also addiug another layer of substantive and procedural hurdles that are not necessruy and could have a chilling effect on community inpuL The Commwiity deserves to have an impartial Platining Commission. in a public forum, make fioaJ decis.ions on all significant new developments that will impact their neighborhoods. Delegating such decision-making responsibility to the City Planner creates a real possibility of disenfranchising the community members and in particular the Barrio r~ents from any true participation in tho process itself. Requiring only an administrative non-publlc review and approvaJ process for significant projects and then forcing upon residents a time COJJSuming and costly review procedure to the Planning Commissio.n and City Council will. in a short period of time, stifle all meaningful communif.y input The procedural layer the Plan is adding to the process by including these items to the list of Minor Improvements creates additional time and expense that will be incurred by residenls being forced to appeal any "final" administrative decision to the Planning Commission at a cost of $1,000 plus and th,en to City Council foranotber $1,000 plus fee.Jam sure you would agree that most residents i.a the Village and Barrio communities do not have the time nor financial resources to go through such a costly and tim&-eonsum.ing process. 0031 j I I I I I ~ ! I I i I I I i i l ii i· ' I I u --·-'•) .. -----·"-·------····"'-·-·· .. ·-----. -=--•. !•!,. ·-· ,_,..,....,., __ ,..______ ......... --•--·-.... ,. ., -........ ,"al,,._.__ ., .-0 _,.,\ ~~ Page 10 December 22, 2015 Any proposed delegation of the PlanningCornmission's decision-making authority fora potentially significant majority ofall new development in th.e Village and Barrio to an insulated Administrator t11at has no effective accountability to the community is neitherneeded nor is it in the best interest of the present and future residents of Village and Barrio. Within a few short years the cumulative impact (positive or negative) of these ."administrative" permits will be substantial and permanent. To try and strike a balance betweepthe communities interests and the expedited process I would propose that these two items be revise4 to state as follows -in the Plan: *** "New constructionofbui1ding(s)regardless of~e, upto4,000 square feet in size, new buildings with 2-4 dwelling units, and/or ..• *** Changes in permiited land useswhich result in slight or minocchanges of less than I 0% in site location, ilroreased traffic. or increased parking requirements .. .'' The above suggested revisions woll}d still enable city staff to administratively expedite most · commercial and residential constructiou for essentially all sman businesses and individual residential ... _propffrty owner:s on smaller projects and still reserve to the Planning Commission the review and decision making authority on all other new projects in the VWage and Barno. Of course, to the e:dent the Planning Commission has already reviewed and approved a prqject and some subsequent issues or concerns arise after the permits are issued, then the Commission could delegate future follow up. corrections or remedies to the City Planner and· his staff to decide and implement administratively. It is not acc.eptable, however, to tum over the entire process on a potentially significant majority of all new projects in the Village and Barrio to the City Planner. While it may be important to streamline the penn.itting process for developers of residential and commercfal projects there must be a balance between the interests of all the sfnkebolders (developers, commun1ty and city) involved. Accordingly, before these proposed new items are added to the list of "Minor Improvements"as drafted in the Plan, a study should be conducted to detennine how much oftlte new construction will actually fa.II u.nder the Minor .(mprovement category. ff it is a substantial majority .as beJieved than these items should be deleted or revised as suggested above to strike a balance between expediency of the process and what is in the best interest of all the stakehoJders. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. G. Comments and Observations. Generally I really 1.ike the overall visions and pedestrian/ bicycfe friendly concepts set out in the Plan. I just do not believe we should compromise building standards that do not really support or strengthen implementation ofthestated "visions" and in:fuotactualtynegativelyaffectthe long tei:m use, enjoyment and qlJality of life of our neighborhood just to-incentivize developers to "in-fiJJ" our community with denser housing and commercial development. · As indicated above, theseproposedcomprotnjsed standards will certainly create a long term scaroity of street parking throughout £he Village and Barrio. These proposed reduced standards win quickly deplete ail avaitablestreet parking supply and at-the same time increase demand because.new deve[opmeots will be. 0032 ····-·"··--..-···· ...... ,_., ...... ----· ·---·--~-. ··-·-·· ----·-·f __ .,. ___ . . ....... -... 0 0 ---·---___ _._ ________ ..... ~ •·•-••• ••••r ·~• • ~ ... .-• ..,._ ••••••••-,.---•""'·--·•• .... ··-• _ _,,..,. ...... - Page 11 December 22, 2015 designed with inadequate parking to seive all visitors, residents aod business owners in the Village and Barrio and in particular the 85% who commute every day. The Plan itself actually acknowledges: a) The need to "Increase the parking supply within tbe village on city-owned parcels and properties as well as on streets" (Plan Item l (d) pg. 2.4); and b) That "Whi.le walkability is a.community goal, the Master Plan must accommodate motorists as it improv.es mobility in the Village and Barrio by other means··-SUiprisingly, the addition of parking spaces can have the unexpected benefit of enhancing biking and walking by removing conflicts, -slowing traffic, and providing a buffer." (Plan Part t, Item 5, pg. 2.53). The substt.ndani building code revis,ions proposed io the Plan are in direct conflict with these stated objectives and findings. Although thePlanalsonotesthatnoactualparkingstodieshaveb e e n c o n d u c t e d " ... westofCarlsbad Boulevard. and east of Madison Street. or i.n the Barrio" (Plan, item 4, pg. 2.52), the Plan still proposes to amend or replace the Municipal Code to reduce by approximately 35% the total number of parking spaces required for new residential developments in the Village and Barrio. (See Plan, Part 2 -Code pgs. 6.43 -6.44). ln fact, the new Plan proposes to eliminate completely the .25 to .30 "space per each unit'' of visitor parking spaces that are nc;,~ required for all residential units under current Municipal Code Section 2 I .44.020, Table A. Common sense would seem to dicl:atethat Carlsbad, like VJ.Sta and Oceanside, should actually study the parking issues in the residential areas SUITOunding the downtown Village area as well as the Barrio between 7 p.m. in the evening through 5 a.m. in the morning, before the Municipal Codes are actually amended or revised to reduce the parking standards for any 11ew_residentiaJ developments. F urthennore, the proposed inclusion of: a) new constru<:tioo ofboiJding(s) regardless of use, up to [5,000 square feet in size; b) new buildings with 2-lO dwelling units; and/or c) changes in permitted land uses which result in site changes, increased traffic, or increased parking requirements to the list of "Minor Improvements" rcaJly needs to be studied further and probably deleted, revised or amended as discussed above. Although these new items may expedite the permitting process for neJ.. developments in the Village and Barrio, it-does so at the risk of suffocating community input and ~ignificantly increases the time and expense to have those concerns heard and reviewed; with no accountability by the City Planner to the community he/she secves. More important, the addition of these items to the list of "Minor Improvements" appears to be the functional equivalent of the Plarming Commissioners simply abdicatingresponsibilityforone oftheprimazy duties for which the Commissioners were appointed to carry out (Le., to make impartial flnaJ decisions on all new developments in the City) on a majority of all new development in the Village and Barrio. H. Suggestions And Recommendations. In light of the above, I make the following suggestions and recommendations regarding the Plan: l) An actual study of commuter trends in the Village and Barrio11eeds to be conducted before there is any reduction ma.de in the parking standards for new constructio0-We need to be sure that all new developments are designed and constructed to accommodate the next 20-year projected parking needs of all residents and io particular the 85% of the commuting population who will res~de in and around the Barrio . ··-..... ~ . . · .. _, ____ ..... _ I I I ~. I I 0033 Page 12 December 22, 2015 and VilJage communities. 2) Any code revisions should actually set forth a stated policy that requires afl large multifamily residential (5 or more units) to be designed with all parking: "On site; below grade; in structures; and/or on first floor space; and screened from stJ:eetview to meet all on-site resident and ~isitor parking needs for such development" The revisions should also probably include an accommodation that allows an increase in the height aod/or floor limitations so density targets and goals can be met by developers.. These increases in height and floor limitations should be sufficient to incentivize and enable developers to maximize density and increase their retnm on investment. 3) Amendments to the Pacific Wind plans are needed to make. the Project more consistent with the concepts set forth in the draft Plan (Plan, Part l, ftem 6 pg. 2.19). To the extent there is an abandonment of . • any pub Uc streets. it must include a realignment, dedication and development of new replacement streets to insure the overall accessibility and walk-ability of the area by sUJTOundingneigbborsas well as the general · public. 4) Ideo~ry all th~ P.()tential and existing public right of way access points to connect the Barrio with the "Coastal Rail Trail" that runs along the train tracks which would be the most f~ble {without eminent domain) and cost-effective locations to instaU additionaJ pedestrian and bicycle paths as soon as the final · Plan is ultimately. approved. 5) A qualified consultant needs to examine the street parking problems that now exist in the core downtown and surr9unding residential communities fur all the cities on the beach from San Diego to San Cleroente. We should evaluate those problems and issues in beach cities with parking standards that are simila£ to Carlsbad's to undezsland what to expect and how we can mitigate the negative impacts. In fact those problems .and issues will .in all likelihood .be even greater in .Carlsbad because the recommended reduced parking standards in tltedraft Plan are befowthe current code standards now setin.fhose surrounding cities. Accordingly this issue clearly needs to be studied further before the parking standards set forth in the draft Plan are actually finalized and approved by thePl~ng Commission and City Council. 6) Study and consideration sbouJd be given to adopting the Cily of San Diego's "area specific:• parking standards in Carlsbad as the preferable formula in calculatin_g resident and visitor parking requirements for the Village and Banio. 7) Carlsbad, like Vista and Oceanside, needs to actually study the parking issues in the re.sidential areas surrounding tlie downtown Village as well as the Barrio between 7 p.m. in the evening through 5 a.m. in the morning (when residential demand is -at its peak) before any action is taken to reduce the parking requi~ents for any new developments under the codes. l believe demand is higher during the evening hours because 85% of the residents are more than likely working commuters. 8) There needs to be some identifiable reasonable and rational factual basis set forth in the Plan to indicate the specific reasons why the currently required garages and covered car spaces should be eliminated for all new residential developments in the Village and Barrio, other than to ceduce development costs. If there are no legitimate reasons or explanations. other than to reduce development costs, than tbe current code standards sbould remain in place for the Village and Barrio. 0034 l I I 0 0 ... _ ____,,_., ... ·-·-•\ ··-·· ... - .-) J Page 13 December 22, 2015 9) Parking and building stand.ams under the Municipal Code should not be reduced or modified in the Village or Barrio until -Such time as lhe studies suggested in items l, 5, 6 and 7 above are actually completed, considered and evaluated by the "Mobility Management District" as proposed and discussed in the Plan (Plan Part 1, Item l, pg. 2.50). Once the "Mobility Management District" is formed and has actually considered and evaluated aJI information compiled through tbe studies it {District),' with the assistance of cey staff, can make fonnal recommendations t.o the Planning Commission and/or City Council on any proposed b:'-'ilding or parking code revisions according to expected needs over the next 20 years. 10) The proposed addition ofitems to the list of "Minor Improvements" in the draft plan should be revised to only include: "New construction of bwlding(s) regardless ofuse, up to 4,000 square feet in size, new buildings with 2-4 dwelling units, and/or ... Changes ~n permitted land uses which result in slight or mfoor changes of less than l 0% in site location, increased traffic, or increased parking requirements ... " 11) lft:he revisions suggested in IO above are not acceptable to the consultants, theo before the two proposed new items discussed in the Plan are added to the list of "Minor Improvements" an investigation and study should be. conducted. The study should detennine how much of the potential new construction in the Vilfage and Barrio will actually qualify under Minor Improvements if these two categories are added to the list as written in the Plan. If it is a substantial nwnber of projects as believed then these items should be deleted a.od/or revised, as outlined above, in the Plan to strike a balance between expediency of the process and what is in the best interest of all stakeholders. I look forward to working with you to address the issues we have concerning the draft Village and Barrio Master Plan as well as the proposed Pacific Wind project. Should any o have any questions or coI1cems regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to conta our earliest convenience. Enclosure (Parking Summary) cc: (aJI cc's with enclosure)· City Council (U.S.Mail only) Hono~ble M.att Hall, Mayor Honorable Keith Blackbum Honorable Mane Packard . Honorable Lorraine, Wood Honorable Michael Schumacher Planning Commission (U.S. Maj)) Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chainnan Honorable Marty Montgomery l:lonorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Keny Siekmaun Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Heureux HohOrable Jeff Segall 0035 I --·······-· ···-····-.. -·-·· ···--·' . .,_ ···-····-.. --. -~-~-- Page 14 December 22, 2015 C&C Development Co. LLC (via email only} Attn. Todd Cottle Barrio Neighbors (via email only) . ~ ;· ~-v·,. \. .. .. ____ ........... -,----·--···-------'--· ·--- 0036 ..... --~ ' ... ---··--··--·--- 0) 1-,,.!.• () .. _ --~ ! • I ~ Sample of Loe~f M1nimnm Parking Requirements Oc!ow is a t~b!e !isting some local beach cities' general minimum parking requirements for mvl1i-family housing. that also references the Municipal Code section under which the requirements a..re esh!b!!shed. For comparison purposes, the required off-street parking spaces, including guest parking, was calculated for a hypothetical 120 unit development consisting of: 30 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, and 60 d1ree bedroom units. The municipalities are listed from the lowest average required spaces per unit to the highest Oceanside 313103 Carlsbad 21.44.020 Table A Solana Beach 17.52.040 San Clemente 17.64.050 Table Encinitas 35.54.030 San Diego 142.0525 Table 142.05C' a) Basic b) Transit/low income; c) Beach/school impact Minimum Required Parking Spaces per Unit Multi-Family .Developments (by Unit Type, Guest for !lU Units} l BR 1.5 1.5 15 1.5 2 I.5 l.25 1.75 2BR 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1.75 2.25 :JBR 2 2 2 2.5 2.5 2.25 2.0 2.5 Guest I p1us20%of tot.al units .25/unit .25/unit 0.333/uoit .25/WJit 120% of total off street parking required u " Proposed .Draft-Master Plan l l.5 J.5 -0- Hypothetical 120 Unit Development Total Spaces Per Spaces Unit 250 2.08 255 2.12 , 255 2.)2 295 2.45 300-2.5 288 2.4 252 2.I 324 2.7 165 1.37 . Note: All of the above are merely the number of reqai.red parking spaces. This list does not include the additional regulafions cities impose such as requiring that at least one space per unit be covered, etc. 1 San Diego Code requires more parking for developments that are'' ... at least partially within a designated beach impact area __ .. and transit/a,ffordable housing areas so aJI three calculations are provided. · 2 San Diego Code allows some flexibility for common area/visitor parking to increase or decrease based on the area affected by the development. 1 "Development qualifying for both a reduce9 parking ratio (transit area or very ww income pa rking ratio) and an it:u:re3sed parking ratio (Parking Impact Area) sh.all also use the basic parking ratio." (Footxtote I for Tab Te 142.0SC) 0037 ·-· I I l I I I I • j I u u ' r ') 'l.,.- (:\ .. ·.I THE BAII.¥Y LEGAL GROUP Scott Donnell 25014 las Brisas_ Road South, Suite s· Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 Facsimile: (951) 304--7S71 May 26, 2016 Senior Planner, City of Carlsbad 163,5 Faraday Carlsbad, CA-92008-7314 -(via email and U.S. mail) Re: Carlsbad Zoning Village and Barrio Master Plan (Revised April 2016) Pa~ific Wind Project (SOP 15-18) Dear Scott: On May 25th I ;r;-eceived an email "PlanningUpdate" indicating that further revisions and public comment on the Village and Barrio Master Plan will. be postponed until the Beach Area Parking Study is c-0mpleted and available in early 2017. It is my understanding from the PlanningOpdate that City stall will take the lead in ". . . finalizing the plan including lncorporat.tng cornmuni ty input and presenting the updated plan .for review by the public, Planning Commission and, ultimately, tbe City Counsel." The purpose of this letter is to provide, among other things, my comments and concerns about the April 2016 Revised Village & Barrio Master Pl an ("Revised Plan") in light of the issues and concerns outlined in my December 22, 2015, letter addressed to you, Austin Silva and Jason King relating to the Village & Barrio Master Plan published in November 2015 ("Plan"). Preliminarily, I would like to say that I do appreciate the honest ef£ort City staff 40d Dover Kohl made in the Revised Plan to try and address most of the substantive concerns set £ort h in my December 22, 2015 letter. On the mo.i::ning of May 25, 2016, I was able to partic.i,pate in a conference call with Pam Drew and Brett Wood with I.<i.mley-Ho.rn and Associates Inc. of Phoenix Arizona who is the outside consultant r.etained by San Diego Association of Governments to address the parking study i sst1es. I feel our conversation went well, and look forward to working. with Brett and Pam regardi ng the parking issues being studiea. 0038 ., . -~. --. -· ·~ -.:. . ·····-······. , ..... ,,__., .. 0 0 •• •• ·---... ____ 1 ... ,_, ___ , ____ _ ... ' J?age Two May 26, 2.016 Although the April 2016 Revised Plan added back in the "garage" and "covered" parking space requirements for single/multi-family dwellings, as well as some required visitor parking for multi-family dwellings, it still retained the approximately one-t.hlrd reduction in required resident parking spaces for multi-family dwellings (See Revised Plan; Part 2, Jable 6.31 page 6.43). Aga.in1 I would encourage City staff to amend the Revised Plan to retain the visitor and resident parking standards currently set out in Municipal Code section 21.44.020 Table A, and also require that all visitor and resident parking be "on site." I was also pleased c.o see that the ''Minor Site Development Plan" standards were revised to reduce the building size from 15,000 to 5,000 square feet and to reduce the " ... new buildings from 2-10 dwelling units ... " and change it to " ... 2-4 dwelling units ... " (Revi~ed !.>lan, Sec. 5.3.2.1, item 1, page 5.6.). I am sttll concerned, h~wever, that item 4 to the "Minor Site Development l?lan" did not provide any further clarifying language and is stili overly broad and ambiguous {Revised Plan, ·sec. 5.3.2.1, item 4, page 5.6.). As discussed ~n my December 22 correspondence 1 this vague description could encompass a broad array of issues that are more appropriately .reserved for the Planning Commiss~on. Accordingly, I would again request that City staff revisit this item and revise the language to pxovide as follows: "4. Changes in permitted land uses which result in sl.ight or minor changes of less than 1.0% in site location, increased traffic or increased parking requirements ... " The above revision would still enable City staff to address small issues that arise, but reserves to the Planning Commission "changes" that . vary significantly from what is Code compliant and/or have already been. approved by t he Planning Commission. I must say that it was somewhat disconcerting to tind the "Barrio E:dge Development" discussion which was in the original November 2015 Plan (see Plan, Part 1, item 6; 2:19) completely deleted from the Revised Pl.an. Furthermore, there was no mention or discussion as to why this section was deleted in it's entirety. I am concerned there may be a conspiracy of silence a foot regarding t he proposed Paci.fie Wind Project (SOP 15-18). However, further discussion on the i ssues surrounding the Pacific Wind Project are probably better left for another time. · ·Accordingly, I will address those concerns more in depth as t he Pacific Wind Project rooves th.rough the approval process. It does not appear tbat tbe "Key Barrio Recommendations" in the November 2015 Plan substanti-vely changed in the Revised Plan, and in particular as it pertains to connecting Magnolia Avenue to Anchor Way with a sidewalk (See Revised Plan., Patt l, item 2.2.2{j), page 2.6). 1\s mentioned in my December 22nd let.ter, I believe this "recommendation" wou.ld be cost prohibitive because it will more than likely reguiLe the 0039 I I I I j i f- l i I ij I ,,. ~ ' I I I I I I !i f I I J I I I .... ,,.,_ .. _ .. ________ ... -. --·-···--·-...... ---·- -,-..• Page Three · May 26, 2016 , . ......_ < . ' ·':"" exercise of eminent domain. Therefore I would suggest that the Revised Pl an-either provide a realistic proposal to connect Magnolia Avenue to Anchor Way or simply delete the recommendation. On the other hand, public rights of way apparently already do exist off Yillage Drive and other locations to the "Coastal Rail Trail" and could probably be done in a less expensive manner and provide better walk-ability for resi'dents to this Coastal Rail Trail. Accordingly I still believe the Revised Plan should include this as a suggestion under the "Key Barrio Recomro.endatioosu section. Please take the above comments into consideration while you are in the process of "finalizing the-Plan." As always, I do truly appreciate your professional courtesy and cooperation as we work through these issues. I f you have any questions concerning the hesitate to cont act me at your earl~es~ opportuni _THE BAIL By: .JLB:kg cc: City council (U.S. Mail only) Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor Honorable Keith Blackburn Honorable Mark Packard Honorable Lorraine Wood Honorable Michael Schumacher Planning Commission (U.S. Mail) Honorable Velyn Anderson; Chairman Honorable Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Siekmann Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Heureux Honorable Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts Austin Silva, Associate Planner (via email only) C&C Development Co. LLC (via email only) Attn: Todd Cottle Pam Dre1--1, Associate Planner (via email only) Jason King (via email only) Dover, Kohl & Partners Barrio Neighbors (via email onl y) _please do not i I I I I 0040 ' ., --· ______ ...... -----·····--··· ~-····---··· 0 0 ·----· ....... ·---··' .. --· ...... -· ... ·----· ., --·-··--- {'f ' --· "'l f • TifE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP Don Neu, City Planner Planning Division City of Ca~lsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 25014 I.as Brisas Road South, Suite 8 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 Facsimile: (951) 304-7571 June 14, 2016 Via U.S. mail and email Re: Carlsbad/Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans {SDP 15-18/MS 1S1 Dear Mi:. Neu: As I am sure you are aware, my wife and I own a home on Magnolia Avenue which is several doors down from the above-referenced Pacific Wind P.roject, which is a proposed "gated" 93 unit affordable housing apartment project ("Project"). Although I have been in contact with Austi n Silva, the· Associate Planner responsible to administratively process this Project, as well as Todd Cottle, a representative of the developer, I honestly believe my comments and concerns regarding this Project are not being taken into serious consideration. The plan for this Project currenUy calls for the City to abandon Harding Street from roughly Magnolia Avenue to carol Place. No replacement street is proposed to be rededicated or constructed. To assist in conceptualizing what is being proposed, I have att ached collectively as Exhibit "l" a ''Harding Street Minor Subdivision (MS -16-01)" and an "Informational Site Plan" which together depict th.e site plan for the Project and t he proposed portion of Harding Street t<? be "abandoned." In the November 2015 draft. of the Village ~ Barrio Master Plan ("11/15 Plan"), under a section entitled the "Barrio Edge Development," it was recommended ·tba t for this site any " ... New ~velopment should not be closed off from the existing neighborhood. In the example shown, the street [i.e., Harding] can be moved closer to the Interstate .•. Parking can primarily be accommodated mid block accessed off an alley in the general location of tbe existing street ... [i.e., Harding]." (See 11/15 Plan, Part l, item 6 'on page 2:19.) However, the "Barrio li:dge Development" which was discussed in the 11/15 Plru,r was deleted in its entirety from the April 2016 Village & Barrio Revised Master Plan ("4/16 Plan") without any comment regarding why the section was removed. 0041 I I I I I !?age Two June 14, 2016 f ) '-- On May 26, 2016, I sent an email to Mr. Silva and Mr. Cottle inquiring as to what input, if any, they had with regard to the deletion of the "Barrio Edge Development'' discussion from the 4/16 Plan. r.n response to that inquiry, Scott Donnell sent me an email dated May 31, 2016, providing a bz:ief "explanation" for the deletion, a copy of which email, together with the letter from the developer referred in Mr. Donnell's 5/31/16 email, are colJ,ecti vely attached as Exhibit "2." As you can see from the enclosures, the developer is of the opinion that "Opening the site up to the existing neighborhood invites the potential for the wrong element to access the site ... " and ''Putting the parking mid block off a narrow alley that is open to the public will invite crime ... " (Exhibit "2,,, pgs. 5-6.) As a resident in the neighborhood ~ediately surrounding the Project, I find this Orange County developer's speculative views and opinions regarding the 11/1~ Pl.an to be somewhat offensive and definitely contrary to the 4/16 Plan's overall stated goals and objectives. There can be little dispute that the current Pacific Wind Project' s .propo-sed plans for a "gated" complex are directly opposed and opposite to the ove·rall visions of walk-ability and accessibility as repeatedly stated and emphasized in the 4/16 Plan, which is now under consideration by the City. I was also surprised to read a 3/19/16 Onion Tribune article stating that th.e "City Council approved a $7 _4 million l _oan in 2012 .•. " for the developer to " ... purchase 21 o.f the duplex lots ... " in the Pacific Wind Assemblage. rt was during the first part 0£ March 2016, 1 realized for the first time that not only does the City have a general "governmental" responsibil.ity in seei11g to it that this Project is planned and built in acco~dance with the City's development standards, but it (City) also has a vested interest in making sure ~he Project is financially successful. After learning of the City's.financial interest in the Projectf I had further communications with Todd Cottle and, Austin Silva from about the middle of March 2016 through the first week of June 2016 in ao attempt to discuss some mitigation possibilities that would address some of my . concerns about the Project, without any success. A copy of the chain of emails from March 16, 2016 through June 6, 2016, are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "3." As you can see from this r~cent chain of emails, th.e developer is now having a "traffic study0 done app~rently to opine as to the potential. negative or positive impacts of closing down Harding Street. It is my understanding that the developer's traffic study is independent of the traffic study now being conducteq by Kimley-Horn & associates, Inc., in connection with the 4/16 Plan_ Without prejudging the developer's traf£ic study, I, as a resident in the Barrio, strongly believe that the City must give more. seri ous consideration to the potentially significant negative impacts upon the residents in the immediate area surrounding the Project, as well as the pu,blic in general, should Harding Street be abandoned. In this regard, I make the :following comments and observations, which I believe you and 0042 1 j ' ! .......... ---····· .. ··· Page Three June 14, 2016 I'.,. t .. 0 ·-.. ----..J.-.. ····- 'J your staff need to take into consideration while evaluating the proposed abandonment of Harding Street and the gating off of this Project; (1) Absent the developer dedicating and constructing a replacement street, I do not believe a basic "parking-study" alone of the immediate area is going to yield sufficient information to justify the City's proposed abandonment of Harding Street. It is my belief t hat the closing down of Carol Place and/or Aarding Street, which currently provides access and additional street parking for t his area, cannot be done without an appropriate study being done in compliance with tbe California Environmental Quality Act {"CEQA"). Neither the developer nor anyone on your st.a'ff has indicated to me that a CEQA analysis is exempt or otherwise not needed for the City to abandon Harding Street as proposed under the current plans for the Project; (2) I also do not believe tbe abandonment or vacation of Harding street meets t he general requirements of Part 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, sections 8320, et seq., nor the requirements for a "''Sumrn~i'ry· Vacation" o·f tbat street under Patt 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, sections 8330, et seq., without requiring the dedication and construction of a "new" realigned street. Accordingly, I would suggest that the City Attorney also review and weigh in on the proposed abandonment of Harding Street before City Staff makes any recommendation or decision on the issue; ( 3) Jefferson and Carol Place/Barding Street are the only t-wo main access · points into and out of ~he Barrio off of Tamarack between Interstate 5 and the railroad tracks. If Harding is vacated withouL a replacemenc road, Jeffe.r~on will. be the only access point into and out of the south side of the Barrio. Should there be an accident or catastrophe which blocks Jefferson Avenue between Anchor t~ay and Magnolia, there 1,lill be no access into or out of the southern part of the Barrio neighborhood from or to Tama.rack. Furthermore, during the school year Jefferson is ~eavily impacted with traffic and street parking issues while children are picked up and dropped off at Jefferson Elementary School. I believe the closing off of f:!arding Street w.i.thout requiring a replacement street poses significant traffic, health, we]fare, and public safety issues that will directly impact emergency personnel and the public/residents access into and out of the Barrio neighborhood from and to Tamarack. Therefore, I would suggest that these public safety "access issues" should also be discussed wiLh the appropriate police and fire department personnel. In fact, I firmly be.lieve this "single" versus "double!< access issue alone, for public safety :reasons, should end tbe discussion about vacating or abandoning any part of Harding Street unless the developer is willing and able to dedicate and construct A replacement street; (4) The abandonment of Harding Street wi tnout an alternative dedicated road to replace it would essentially be a "gift'' of public land/streets to this private developer. While 1 recognize that the City 0043 , .. -·· I I ii _______ .. _____ . ______ .... ---·-··· .. , ... ~----... -·-·-~ ---·-.. ----.,.,. ___ ,.___.J_.,_~--- Page Four June 14, 2016 n ~ ,· .may have a vested financial interest in the Project's success, i t also has an overriding duty and obligation to retain, preserve and maintain the public streets for the safe use and enjoyment of all the local surrounding .residents of the site, as well the public in general. The faithful and diligent performance of these responsibilities to the residents of Carlsbad should take absolute priority over and above the personal financial interests of a private developer and/or City; (5) Although the 165 resident parking spaces proposed for the roughly 93 affordable housing units to be built on the site may be "Code cotnpl.iant, 11 i f the Proj ect did not have the affordable housing allowed reductions tbe parking spaces required under Municipal Code section 21.44.020 Table A would be 199 (175.50 resident and 23.25 visitor). The development site currently has roughly 180 parking spaces consisting of garagesr driveways and street parking to serve roughly 52 existing uni.ts on Harding Street and Carol !?lace. In the evening ( 6 p .m. to 5 a. m.) essentially all of these 180 spaces are already inadequate to meet current demand. By almost doubling the number of units on this proposed Project site with less available street and on site parking spaces, will almost certainly negatively impact the su.t.rounding neighbors of this proposed "gated" connnuni t y. (6) The surrounding neighbors and the public in general have the need and a right to access these public streets for ingress, egress and parking purposes. By abandoning Barding Street and gating off th.is developmentr the City will be doing a great disservice to all the surrounding neighbors and the local community in general. On its face it a ppea:i:s inappropriate to give a significant "gift" of public land to a private developer for its own personal use and financial gain to the det~iment of the surrounding neighbors and t he community in general. More importantly, the current proposed "gated" Project not only would effectively block a ll access of the community to a public street but is in direct conflict with the overall visions and proposals specifically ou tlined in the 4/16 Plan and poses a significant threat to public safety. In other words, the Project site should remain "open," not ga-ced, so that the surrounding neighbors as well as the general public can continue to bave open unhindered access to Harding Street (or a replacement street) for ingress, egress and parking purposes. In light of the above, I suggest and request that you, the City Attorney and the appropriate police and fire safety personnel take a closer look at this Pacific Wind Project while it is still in its early stages to ensure City Staff and the developer are giving proper weight and considerati on to the above concerns and issues, and in particular to the potentially severe negative impacts of this proposed Project upon the surr ounding neighbors and the public in general. 0044 I ' r ; f ! l I i i i t I I ' ! t t r ~ i ! I i I i I l i I ~ I . ' ! i I i l ~ I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I li f I I. ff I ., -···-·-·-....... ,_ .. ___ , ..... ------..... -----·-'"'-·---- ---------~-·· .. ·····---'-----··· . - Page five June 14, 2016 0 ··------· _,..~.,., .-, ·J 0 ··-. ,., ... I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from you soon concerning the issues outlined above. Should you have any questions or need any further clarifications regarding any of the above, please do not_ hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. JLB:kg Enclo·sures Cc: All cc' s w/enclosures _Sincerely, By: Planning Commission Members:· Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chairman Honorable Marty Montgomery -. Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Si ekmann Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Hew:eux Honorable Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts (U.S. mail only) City Council Members: Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor Bonorable Keith Blackburn, Honorable Mark Packard Honorable Lorraine w'ood, Honorable Hichae~ Schumacher, (U.S. mail only) Austin Silva, Associ ate Planner (Via eJ11ail only J Barrio Neighbors (Via email only) . ___ .;: 0045 I I i I __ .... ·-·-·-. -· -··-·-·--·-··· ft PAGE t 0,7--- mu ii~i 0046 1 i l l t I • l ~ • I I t I I I I i ' ~ i ~ I I f C) C m..,ttne: 'kl••• ~ ---, --~~,t.MaU'WriA J I 5:rterlll ~ .... , .:!l'MSD'1¥lktbt .,,,rt~t-letitt:en: .... !fllll'l., Gentr,IPIAl'Lir,d ,--,.,1,i.1lon t 11-lO 1, ,, Oul&ll'do,, , 110-M l ii/.;' ol blum, li<I"'•" •• Slit 1v .. , .t •.o. A.Rt D••tl1)' ;.t lJ.0 Ho.,.eliAcn T oul Mont•• : tl l·llcd Ul\lu: ll (U.4!() l-OtdU1ilt11 IB(IM~ l·lled Unlt1: u (S&.°") ~"""'~·' 1:1 Sp,c11il-1"4 Uf,11> : 11 •I• 11 ti.~~.:~~ !-l"'!" :.2l:r.J.!;..1~ TotolSpacu Rtq•lr•d • IU ~~f.~<!t~ Car,orc Spuet P,.,.,.dtd 1 9l Y.19.•trrt!eaw.._ _..J...l! 1oc.1Sp&W l'Nwld14 1 f6S V,n uunlbto parW"' : I ,,.,,. pN>Vldod ror Aocm~l>!I !ull41111 Totll 1pue1 pto,!dtd olWCtt I IH INFORMATIONAL SITE PLAN PACIFIC WIND APARTMENTS C:.: Ms iiiio.c~-t II ! !: 4H,l41H lt.Mfl:t•••»·-r 1, ltd• b :,e W ..... t ... · ,_..,. .. ..,_, ¥b • C:dW1'4• I ISIL l •PlPM'1~~»u;ill6.nQ;)l,t;J ~ -r.. : 0 ··--c~·~--i ! rail. t--~ MS 16-0 t 0 ) SP-! ·-•--•. J. 0<,U,14 ;t,ffl __ ;t,:··!i, '~-;l::.~.,.:,-1~11,. I , >-1~t,,r!\!,"li • ~,!!-1,,g , ~mP.\'!l~~·t . . -· ... -, ... -.... ---···· ... , .. -· -··-·"'·•---·· ,.,._ .......... -·-·-··-· "·'··-------------· . Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans (.,. of3 ~ ~ ~.:.} Subject: Carlsbad ///Pacific Wind Project ,. Revised Plans From: John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> Date: 5/31/2016 11:30 AM To: Scott Donnell <scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov> CC: Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com>, Kathi LaCroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com> Hi Scott, Thank you for the explanation and fhe attaclunenCs regarding the April 201~ revisions to the Vjllage & Barrio Master Plan. Austin, We firmly believe that any abandonment of Harding Street as refleded in the Pacific Wmd revised plan (2/9/16) is going to have an extremely negative and detrimental UD}>act on our surrQunding neighborhood unless there is a re-dedication and improvement of an alternative street to provide replacement access .and street parking to the public and the surrounding nejgbbors. At your earliest opportunity your earliest opportunity wouJd you please call me to discwis these issues further. Thanks, John ,. .. PLl!ASENOl'EN&WEMAU.ADDRESSANDFlllM.tiAll11L' .. John B,u"lty Tbc naney Legal Groop 25014 L~• Bri••S South,Sttile B Murrieta, CA 92561 (951)30'-7S66 Olli~ (9Sl)l04-7S7l Fa, ~ ---Forwarded Message -- Subject:RE: Carlsbad ///Pacific Wind Project - R evised Plans Date:Tue, 31 May 201617:.2£46 +0000 From:Scott Donnell <ScottDonnell@carlsbadca.gov> To:John Bailey <ibailey@thlglaw.com>, Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbadca.gov>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> CC:Kathi Lacroix <klacroix@tblgfaw.com> Hi John, EXHIBIT '' z.,, 11 PAGE I OF lO '6/9/2016 7:30 AM 0048 I I u f; ! •• ,.. ••• _.,. .......... !.. •• •• ;L·•-,.,~ ................... • •• ___ .. __ ....... --... ____ ..,_ ... 0 0 . ---... _ .. -"' ........ .. Carlsbad I I I Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans n of3 l'rn writing regarding the deletion of the Barrio Edge Development discussion. The text and accompanying graphic were deleted following conversations and input with and among staff, the consultant, and c&c Development, the Pacific Wind developer. This included a letter from C&C,attached. Dover Kohl prepared the graphic and text as a suggestion for how this area could redevelop. However, plans had c;llready been submitted by c&c, and the conflict between the master plan and c&C's plans created ~ confusion. The intent of Dover Kohl's work was to simply suggest conceptually bow the area could redevelop. This works in many instances where no development plans have been submitted; however, since a project 1.... had already been submitted, it seemed better to delete the suggestion and let the Pacific Wind proceed on its • own rnerits based on overafl master plan objectives expressed for the Barrio. I am working on a table that identifies and desaibes changes between the November 2015 and April 2016 master plan drafts. t hope this an?iwer provides clarity. Scott Donnell Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-602-4618 J 760-602-8560 fax1 scott.donncll@cadsbadca.gov From:John Bailey [mailto:jbailey@tblgtaw.com} Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 2:00 PM To: Austin Silva <Austin.Silva@carlsbgdca.goy>; Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> cc: Scott Donnell <Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca,gov.>; Kathi LaCroix <klacrolx@tblglaw,com> Subject: Carlsbad Ill Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans Austin and Todd, I was out of the State fur a iew weeks in late April to early May and have now just about caught up on everything. · As I am sure you are both aware the "Barrio Edge Development" d.iseussion which was in the original November 2015 Village & Barrio Master Plan (see Plan, Part 1, item 6, 2: 19) was completely deleted from the April 2016 Revised Plan. For the sake of transparency would each of you please tell me the substance of any coDUDunications (oral or written) either of you had with Scott Donnell, other city staff and/or Dover Kohl concerning that discussion io the in the original No-vember 2015 Plan and/or why it was deleted, without comment, from the April 2016 Revised Plan. In-addition to the above we still have some significant concerns about the City's potential vacation or abandonment of Harding Street, without the re-dedication and impro-vement of an alternative street to provide replacement access and street parking to the public and surrounding neighbors. Where are we-on this issue and have either of you given any thought or consideration to my suggestion th.at Todd's company eonsidcr dedicating the Magnolia lots from Harding Street to the freeway (i.e. APN's 204-292-0l & portion of204-292,.16) as addjtional screened park.ing area fo1· the development?. EXHIBIT" 2...," PAGEL OF Jo 6/9/2016 7:30 AM 0049 ~ r ~ $ ~ i ! I f I I . ~ ~ I I a • I l I! ,, ) '~ .. ·-·· -·~ .. ~ ....... ----~-...... _ ........... ··---·'-__ ,,.., ,, ·--............ --------· ,-. -· _,_., ··-·-... ·-··M·-··"I ' ·-·····-. Carlsbad f // Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans ,r-·,-. (; of3 '· . { At your earliest convenience would each of you please give me a call so we can discuss the above as well as the current status of the Pacific Wind Project. Thailks, John. JohnB•iley , The Balley Lcg•I Group '25014 us Jlris:,s Sooth, S1titc B ll{unic~. CA 925G2 (951) 304-756~ Oflicc (951) 304-7571 Fait U,.ileY@tl,lgl;n)\com No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG-www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6201 I Vnus Database: 4591/12335 -Release Date: 05/31/16 -Attachments:-------~---------------------- Cottle 1.13.pdf EXHIBIT O -z_ 0 PAGE? OF fO 991 KB 6/9/2016 7:30AM 0050 ·-----·--······--·:.- _..,. ...... -. • ·-···-·· ...... ,.,_, __ . 0 0 ... ~-------·----·-·· ----- ----------. ---------·· Scott Donnell From: Sent: To; Cc: Subject Attachments: HI Scott, .. -.... . · -, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> Wednesday, January 13. 2016 10:06 AM Scott Donnell Debbie Fountain; Austin Silva; Pa1 Whitaker; Rochelle Mills; Barry Cottle; Scott Adams Letter Addressing Village and Barrio Master Plan 160113 Carlsbad Letter Addressing Barno Master Plan.pdf Attached is a letter With our comments on the draft Village and Barrio Master plan. We appreciated the opportunity to provide comments. We also "tested" our current site plan and design againsuhe proposed design standards. We didn't see a conflict. Thanks and please don't hesitate to contact us with any questions. Todd Cottle C & C Development Co., LLC 14211' Yort>a SL, Ste. 200 Tustin, CA 92780 714-288-7600 x250 866-570-0728 (fax) todd@c-cdev.com EXHIBIT n Z. ,, PAG~ i OF /b 0051 • I I ~ s i I I J I . . January 13, 2016 Mr. Scott Donnell, Senior Plamer City of Carlsbad Community and Economic Development 1635 Faraday Ave.nue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 VIA:Email RE: Draft Vi!Jage & Barrio Master Plan-Public Commenrs Mr. Donnell, -~-... --. Thank you for this opportunity to prdvide comments on the Draft Village&; Barno Master Piao. We appreciate all of your and the City's effort to this point in working with the public and stakeholders within the area to develop a complex plan that will serve as a guideline and establishes the future vision for development within these areas. We currently own and operate duplex apartment units located in the 3700 & 3800 block of Harding Street, 844 Carol Place and 3824 Jefrerson Street. Oor existing units are affordable to individuals and families earning up to 60% of area median income. We are currently processing entitlements for the-redevelopment of the existing duplex units. We are located within the Edge District of the Barrio Neighborhood. We have reviewed the draft plan in detail and have the following comments: 1. Ulustrative Plan for Barrio Edge Development (page 2.19). a. . The illustrative provided within this section is comprised almost entirely of the site we own and was drawn to depict a site plan that is different from wj1at we have proposed to the City for its redeve.lopment. As a result, we have already r~ived comments from neighbors indicating that our proposed site plan is in conflict with what the City wants to see developed on the site. Since it is confusing to the community, we would like to see the illustrative ohanged to either a.) a site plan that closely resembles our proposed site plan orb.) the illustrative changed to reflect another location within the 8aJTio Edge District. b. The narrative within tllis section indicateS: "New development should not be closed off from the existing neighborhood." ( Opening the site up to the existing neighborhood invites the pote11tial for the wrong ) element to access the site. This may have made sense if the neighborhood was going to be redeveloped slowly over a number of years. However, witll our consolidated ownership we will be redcvelopfng a majority of the neighborhood at one time. Public access to the community-center at the southwest comer of the property will be provided through controlled access point~. We would suggest eliminating this comment. 14211 Yorba St., Ste. 200 Tustin., CA 92780 714--288-7600 www.c-cdev.com EXHIBIT "2-" PAGE <OF .[O 0052 ········-······ I-----·-··-·"· ·----··· -, •• _ .. ,..,, ... 0 ---~---········ c. The narrative within this sec!Jon indicates "In the example show.n, the street can ·be moved closet" to·the Interstate."' Rarely is tbis conditiou aesthetically pfeasing. We have provided an attaclunent with a couple of photos of a location similar to what is being proposed in 1his sentence. The sound wall adjacent to the public slreet doesn't look good. We would suggest eliminating this comment if the sample illustrative pertains to our sct.e. d, · The nanative within this section indicates" Parking can primarily be accommodated mid block accessed off of an alley in the generailocation of the existing street " .• ......... ,~ ..... _~-··· i Putting the parking mid block off of a narrow alley that is open to the public will invite J Lcrime. We would suggest eliminating this comment if the sample iJlustrative pertains to our site, 2. DistrictStaodaros for the Edge District (page 6.14) Landscape and I{ardscape Standards-20% of the property. We belfeve these stan<laros sltou.ld be modified to enable private balconies, patios and community room space to be included in this calculation. Attached for your reference are ex:cerpts from the draft master plan that reflect the comments provided above. In summary, we strongly support the pfan and the City in the development of a Master Plan for the Village and Barrio areas. We appreciate your consideration in incorporating our suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, 6).tJtllL Patricia Whitaker rnnovative Housing Opportunities Attachments, Site Plan fur Proposed Pacific Wind Development Commettt.s on the Master Plan cc; Austin Silva, City of Carlsbad Debbie Fountain, City of Carlsbad Scott Adams, Bassenian Lagoni Architects Todd Cottle C&C Development EXHIBIT " 1-u PAGE '1 OFl0 0053 ! I I j I I I I I· I I I-f' i () 0 .. _.,._. ___ ,_,_, _____ , ____ . ..,.,,..,.--··· n .,..;:.._. ___ ,...__ I I I I I I 0 ----.. ~., 5. Tyler Alley Artist Village Due to the location of the f'af1road trades, Tyler Street is located only half a block from Roosevelt Street This creates deeper lots adjacent to the railroad right-of-way that is appropriate for industrial type uses, but also creates a row of double sided lots from Chestnut Avenue to oak Avenue. fyler Street turns into an alley at oak Street as it continues toward Carlsbad Viff,1ge Drive and into the Vlllage. This street to alfeyway transition creates a unique opportunity to bridge the gap between the Village and Barrio. The end of State Street at Oak Avenue has seen renewed investment and deve.lopmeot of small businesses. This can be supPlemented by utifmng existirig <lOttages and developtng new small cottages (or other out buildings), along the alley, creating an eoclave of affotdable studios and art spaces. 6. Barrio Edge Development Development aroUf1d the edges of the Barrio by and the railroad tracks have been identiffed as tions for denser development. Ho~ever, development hould occur In a w;;y that does not detract from the c racier of the Barrio. Parcels in this area may be assemble to create larger developments and could provide an oppo ity to create affordable housing within th~ central area Carlsbad. New development stiould not be closed off from the existing neighbo~hood. In the example shown. the street can b moved doserto the lnte,state. This allows residemial buildi to be located further from the Interstate· while also creating a larger block. Parking can primarily be accommodated ffiid . blcx:k accessed off of an alley 1n the. general location of the existing street. Buildings can be street oriented and a n w park can enhance the area and give new and existing r dents a place ro meet arid enjoy the outdoors. Putting the parking mid block off of a narrow alley that is open to the public will invite crime. Recreate illustrative to provide something that more closely matches our proposed redevelopment of the neighborhood. We'll provide the current-site plan. We have already received comments from the surrounding neighbors indicating that our proposed site plan is different from what the City wants to see developed on the site. .. .. Opening the site up to the existing neighborhood invites the potential for the wrong element to access e site and resident vehicles. This may have rnade sense if the neighborhood was going to be redeveloped slowly over a number of years. However, with our ownership we wiff be redevelopin9 a majority of the neighborhood .at one time. Public .access to the community center at the southwest comer of the property will be provided through controlled access points. ,. 0055 t I I I I j I I I [ i j ! I i i g I I I --···' I I t I I 0056 i \ \ l I I i I t I i I I I t j ~ i1 I I l I ~ l 4) 1:1 0 0 -·-··-··-~-···-·---- 0 4. Edge District (ED} a. Intent G The Edge District Inell.Ides the properties within the Barrio contains a mix of building types and uses, including attached rhat are located adjacent to Interstate 5 and portions of housing. Buildings should be carefully positioned along the Tamarack Avenue and the railroad corridor. The Edge Oisuict Interstate In order to reduce noise poll~tion for inhabitants. b. Building Height 35' Maximum Principal Building Height Maximum for Architectural Elements: Maximum for Accessory Structures: Subject to approval bv the decision making authority. 14' c. Building Coverage Maximum: d. Setbacks Front Yard: Side Yard (Interior): Side Yard (corner): Rear Yard: RearYardw/ underground parking: e. Permitted Uses See Pemitted uses Cllart. 60% 10' min. -20' max. o• min. attached; 5' min. detached S'min. 10' min. O'mln. f. Permitted Encroachments Porches {including covered porcties). stoops, awnings, cano- pies, and upper floor balconies are permftted in the front yard; these elements are permitted to encroach up to six (~) feet into the front yard. Figure 6.9: Edge Oist:tfct Helght Diagram 1. Hei&f>IS st,~U ~ mi,;,surecl to Ille peak or tM ,cot« ro.or dedr (if 1131), in ~ with Sedk>ll 21.04.065 in Iha cat1sbad Mlllllcipa( code. eom a flat roof and a pitched roof are pe-,nittcd. 2. ~ Olag,,m above iS shown for illustnni~e pur·poses only; other conligurat1011S are allowed as long as they meet the requtrementsllsted wltf,fn this distritt. g. landscape or Hardscape Twenty-percent (20%) of property must be maintained as landscaping_ Courtyards, roof terraces, or amenities on the upper decks of parking structures mav count toward the land- scape re ·rement but at least one-half of the requirement fiture_ 6.1D: Edee ~strlctSetb.d<;Oiagram must be enery. h. Par ing Standards S_ee Villag and Barrio Parking Requirement Chart. i. Acee sory Structures Building h ight shall not exceed fourteen feet if e minimum roof pitch f 3:12 is provided or ten feet if less than a 3:12 roof pitch is provided. Second dwelling units constructed above d hed garages, located within a lot's buifdable area, purs nt to Section 21.10.D30(E)(4) are nor subject to the one-st ry/lourteen-foot height lim1tation imposed on · Request that private balconies, patios and community/rec room space can be counted towards this20%. r ---- - ----.--~--------·-·-· 1. lhe fac;,des and elevations of Pril'IC1pal Suidi(q::s shall be cfistanccd from the lot lln6as<l>oWnabove. EXHIBIT " 2 " PAGE [DoF io 0057 I I I I I i I ~--------... -• --··· .... -•• 1 ......... ·-···· ........... --.. ~·· ,i _____ .......... -··~·-····· .. -'~·-· Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project-RevisedJ.~ns (SDP 15-18 /M- : } .,-,, , i Subject: Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans (SDP 15-18 /MS 15) From: John Bailey <jb_ailey@tblglaw.com> Date: 6/6/2016 3:50 PM To: Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov> CC: jason.geldert@carlsbadca.gov, Kathi Lacroix <ldacroix@tblglaw.com> Austin, Thank you for speaking with me this afternoon. It is my understanding from our conversation that the City is still wiDing to consider the abandonment and/or vacation of a significant portion of Harding Street without re.quiring the developer to re-dedicate and re-construct a replacement road along the 5 freeway outside the Pacifk. Wind project (SOP 15-18 /MS 15). I firmly believe the abandonment of Harding Street as proposed under the current Pacific Wind plans is going to have an extremely negative and detrimental impact on the available street parking outside this ngated" project's boundaries. It is also going to prevent free . . . pubtic access through t he area as initially recommended in the November 2015 "!llage & Barrio Master Plan. From the middle of March thru the end of May 2016, I have attempted to discuss with the developers representative, Todd Cottle, some mitigation possibilities to addtess my conceras and issues but without any success (see chain of emails below). l am now informed that the developer has contracted to have a traffic study done to opine as to the potential negative or positive impacts of closing down Harding street. Did the City "require" the developer to conduct this traffic study as a condition to any decision by the City on the potential abandonment of Harding Street? Also would you please let me know as soon as the traffic study has been completed and submitted to the C!ty so f cah come in and obtain a copy for review? Thanks, John .. ,pt£ASENOTENEWEMA1lADDR£SSANOF1RMN/IME.'0 John Bailey The Bailey legal G/oup 250Ml..as8.r!sasSoutl\,Sdii;e8 Ml.ll'J'le_t;;, CA 9256? (951) 304-7566 Office (9$1) 304-7511 f"1)( ~.@thfglaw.cn1n CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICe-Toe fnfor~on conr.lined f• this efewooit mail message Is mnfidenliaf lnfom,alion intEn<lcd oaly for the use of me I ndhlfdu:d or entity to whom !tis intended to be dlreded. Toe-sender of this messigQis a Member ortheState 83t'of C!lilomla,and i1S t0rtte11ts may be privife:ed from disclosure under the AttotneyOiept P<rvflec•, the Attomey Worl<PrO<luct Pm1Hege, the Right of Privat;'containedln U,e Olifomia CQnstitution, ,ind other rights and privileges thal predudediJdosure ol confidential Information. The il'lformation in this messoic mi!yalso be ptotected by the l:lectro11ic Communications Prilr.!cy Act, 13 USC Sectl011Sm0-2SU. If the readeroi this messaae is not the 1nlcndcd rcdplent, 'j0Uore~~rclly11otificd th>tany dissemination, dlstnbullooor EXHIIIT {ti 3 re 6/9/2016 7:37 AM 0058 of7 .. _.--~~-.. ·--·· . -·-----. ,, ...... ~·· ....... - 0 0 ,.,_ ..... --.. -........... ___ , .. --···---·--·· ------....... -· ··--· Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind _Project-Revis~~(SDP15-18 /1'L copying ol this communication lsstricllt proll\bllcd. r( you~-re<Clvcdthls communlation ;. erlO(; p1.,_ ~.dynoCiJy the s~~ by te.Wrllc•meil or at the tt!ephOt1e number a!iowattd delttctht.~ -=~- --Forwarded Message---- Subject:Carlsbad Ill Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans Date:Thu, 26 May 2016 16:45:22 -0700 From:John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> To:Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> CC:Kathi LaCrofx <klacroix@tblglaw.com> Thank you for calling me this afternoon. I appreciated our candid conversation concerning the Pacific Wind project. As I explained during our conservation the difficult "street parking issues.'' in the Barrio are my primary concern, as they do and will continue to have a direct -and lasting impact on our quality of life In the neighborhood. Based on our conversation I now know for certain that you are not ln a position to consider utilizing any of the Magnolia lots (now outside the project boundaries} for additional parking as an option to increa.se-available parking. During our conversation you also made it clear that the proposed 163 parking spaces under the revised pJan meet code requirements. I fuITy understand you position. However as I mentioned during our conversation, although your 2/9/16 revised plan apparently meets current code parking standards for "affordable housing" it only does so if the City vacates a substantial portion of Harding Street. Unfortunately I firmly believe the abandonment of Harding street under your 2/9/16 revised plan is going to have an extremely negative and detrimental impact on the availabte street. parking outside your proposed "gated" project, which is why J wanted you to consfder installing more parking spaces even though you are not required to do so by the applicable code. rn light of the above we have little choice at this point but to oppose any vacation or abandonment of Harding Street, without the re-dedication and improvement of an alternative street to provide replacement access and street parkmg to the public and your surrounding neighbors. Although r am certainly open to future discussions to amicably resolve these issues it would probably be best if I worked directly with your attorney from this point forward. Accordingly it would be greatly appreciated if you would send me the name and contact information of that individual at your earfiest opportunity. John EXHIBIT A 3 ca 6/9/7.0fF,7·~74'M • 0059 I I I l I ! l t l i l i I ~ l i I l l i I. . , ... --.. ____ , ...... _. _______ .__ . ' ,.,_, ··----·-· .. ····-···• .. , . . ~ .. ------------ Carlsbad II/ Pacific Wind Project-Revi'se}E1fs (SDPtS-18 /M- -. . ~•~ Pl.EAS'E NOT{ NEW EMAILAOOIIESSAN.D flR"4 NAME.,_ John Bailey The Baney U!t,il Group :z5014 li>i IMSi15 South,.$::4"eB Murrietot.CA~ (,!15'1J 304-7S6~011i~ (9SlJ 304-751lfax (baileylij>tj,li:fsw.rnn CONA0ENTIJIUTY NO'Ot:elhe information tont:fulad in thlselearonicrmi! mess>J:C ls =lidenllal lnfom,;at;on i~or,tvfortne use of tile lndMdllalor endty to whom ltls lntMded to Ire due<U:d. The scnduoCthlsmR~alnMemb&r<if the Stme &rof Cilllfomla, ""dils<enl>tnlS IT>ily be pri11U~ged from dlsdo,;;nt uncltt tho,AttomeyCUeJ>t Privilege, th,; AtlomayWotl<ProouctPrivUep.the ~of Privaq, amalned fntheO&fomla Cm1Jtftutioo. •nd ollla~ and prlvik!ges11t11 py,,dude cfmfasurc uf conlidenli..t Worm31fon. Thee fnformm01l fa this m~ n111yalu, b.. pro~c:tcd bV tile ElectronlcCammu,,Jewons Privacy Act, :IBUSCS"ctlons 251.0-25:Zl. If the reeder of lhis mes:soce Is not the int.c,1ded redpien~ you""' huebynollfle,Unat l!lff'f dissemination, dlstributi'or,or copyint ol thfsa,rnmunicationisstrlcdy ptohltiited. lfyou lwwc m:.e_iw,d lflTs """""1Ncatloo la el'JO(, plcarse lmmedllllelynOlifythe ..,nder by return e-mall nrat the telephone numberabo>e and delele tht original miwa,er. • ---Forwarded Messaise -- Subject:Carlsbad / JI Pacific Wind Project-Revised Plans Date:Thu, 26 May 2016 14:00:13 -0700 From:John Bailey <jbailey@tblgiaw.com> To:Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov>. Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> CC:Scott Donnell <scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov>, Kathi laCroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com> Austin and Todd, I was out of the State for a few·weeks in fate Aprif to early May and have now Just about caught up on everything. As I am sure you are both aware the "Barrio Edge Development" discussion which was In the original November 2015 Village & Barrio Master Plan (see Plan, Part 1, item 6, 2:19) was ·compfetely deleted from the April 2016 Revised Plan. For the sake of transparency would each of you please tell me the substance of any communications (oral or written} either of you had with Scott Donnell, other city staff and/or Dover Kohl concerning that discussion in the in the_originat November 2015 Plan and/or why it was deleted, without comment, from the April 2016 Revised Plan. ln~addition to the above we still have some significant concerns about the City's potential vacation or abandonment of Harding Street, without the re-dedication and improvement of an alternative street to provide replacement access and street parking to the public and surrounding neighbors. Where are we on this issue and have either of you given any thought or consideration to my suggestion that Todd's company consider dedicating the Magnofia lots from Harding Street to the freeway (i.e. APN's 204-292-01 & portion of 204-292-16) as additional screened parking area for the development? At your earliest convenience would each of you please give me a call so we can discuss the above as well as the current status of the Pacific Wind Project. _ EXHIBIT "'3 e, of7 f,/Q/701f.7,•n MA 0060 I I I ' i I I I I I !l. -· .. ·-.. -------·-··· . ·····--···-•u-1 • ,,4 _ _,.. ----··-··· 0 ---··-··· ·-·--, .. -...... '·--·-... Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project -Rev!se~4ns {SOP 15-18 /M- Thanks, John JohnS-.iley The Bailey tepl Group 25014 l.lls Srlsas South, Suite 8 Mumeca, CA 92.562 (951J 304-7.566 Off! (II (9Sl) 304-7571 fa>< Jball•y@tbl1f;,w.mm ----Forwarded Message --. Subject:Carlsbad // / ~cific Wind Project -R~vised Plans Date:Th·u, 17 Mar 2016 08:11:24 -0700 From:John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> Clay, To:Cfay Orey <clay.orey@yahoo.com> CC:Kathi LaC~oix. <klacroix@tblglaw.com>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com>, A_ustin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov> I have attached an Assessor's Parcel Map depicting the "Not Included lotsu referenced In my email below to Todd Cottfe. Please note that I mistakenly Identified 204-291-35 in my email below. The correct APN is 204-291-16. The zoning density will not change. It remains ROM which is essentfalfy 30 units per acre. The actual residential density when constructior;, is complete for the proposed Assemblage wm increase from roughly 52 exsistfng dwellings (i.e. 26 duplex lots) to about 96 residential units (i.e. 90 units under the revised plan plus the 3 duplexes made up of "Not Included lots"). From a practical stand point there are about 180 garage, driveway and street parking spaces available right now that serve the roughly 52 existing duplex units. The revised plan proposes 163 residentiaJ (no visitor} on site parking spaces to serve the 90 affordable units. This does not seem adequate. I believe however that the proposed number (163) of spaces are hcode comp!rant" updertfle Crty's current row income housing code (I.e. 21.86.90.6, Table E). My concem is that if the City abandons Harding Street we, as surrounding neighbors, not only lose public access through the neighborhood but we alsb forfeit about 30-40 street parking spaces that now serve the Assemblage and the surrounding neighbors. Prior to the Pacific Wind "revised plan" being submitted to the City, I proposed the Developer dedicate and reconstruct a New Street along Interstate 5 should the City decide to vacate Harding Street. I did not and do not believe, for a myriad of reasons, that the Public or the surrounding neighbors receive any benefit for the City to vacate Harding Street. However, I do like the revised Pacific Wing plan which is why I suggested that Mr. Cottle consider dedicating the Magnolia lots from I-fording Streetto the freeway (i.e. APN's 204-292--01 & portion of 204-292-16} as additional screened parking area for the development. EXHJ'BIT "3 ~ -of7 6/9/2016 7:37 AM 0061 I I I I j .J ----··----··"'-.. "'-·. ·---· .. ~ ........... _,_,,. ...... ,, .. Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Project-Revised)!J.ans (SOP 15-18 /M._ ( ... .. ) ____ , .. _.. __ ,. --,·-···~-·· As to the aesthetics of the project, whether positive or negative, I believC;! those are more subjective and will vary between every individual. Page 2 of the Plans that I attached to my emafJ to Todd Cottle will give you and idea as to what the architecture will look like. However I would suggest you actually goto the City Planning Department o n Faraday Ave. and review the plans so you can get a better idea of what is actually being proposed for the architecture, landscaping, etc. I hope this is responsive to your questions and concerns but please feel free to contact me if you wouid like to discuss these issues any further. John John Balley Th10 Balley Leg.al Group 25Q1A las ll<fsas South, Suite it Municta, CA92.S62 (9S11304--7566 Office (!!Si) 304-7571 Fax Ihallev@mreiaw.sero -----Forwarded Message --- ·SubjectRe: Carlsbad I I I Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans Oate:Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:16:51 +0000 (UTC) From:Clay Orey <clay.orey@yahoo.com> Reply-To:Clay Orey <clay.orey@yahoo.com> Jot,n: To:John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com>, Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> CC:Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov>, Kathi LaCroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com>, Scott Donnell <scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov> As another owner in the area, i would be interested to see a map of exactly which olher lots are owned by lhis co,:npany and what the final screened parlcing would look like. Aside from hying to avoid adding to an already strained parking situation on lh.e surrounding streets one of ITT/ main concerns Is maintaining and inl)foving the aesthetics of the neighbomood. Anything that positively or negatively impads the property values in tile area is going to be of great Interest to not only myself but all ot the other property owners as well. Additionally, do we have a final accounting of how this is going to lmpacf the current population density In the area? Ate we increasing, decreasing or staying neutral. Thank you for your time and consideration. Clay Orey From: John Bailey <ibailey@tblglaw.com> To: Todd Cottle <todd@c-cdev.com> Cc: Austin Silva <austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov>; Kathi Lacroix <k!acroix@tblglaw.com>~ Scott Donnell <scotldonnell@carlsbadca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:11 PM Subject: Carlsbad Ill Pacific Wind Project -Revised Plans EXHtBfT 11 3 " ----· _ .. ,·. 6/9/20167:37 AM 0062 ! I .......... ,_ .. , ....... ,_ ....... , ..... , ... ,, .. __ 0 0 -----. .. . ···--··· __ ,.__,, ....... ·---·· .. ,. ........ ----.. ·-----, ____ ..,_ -.. . .. Carlsbad/// Pacific Wind Projecr-Revised.f:l~)°5 (SOP 1S-18 /M_ n iof7 Todd, Thank you for taking the time fast Thursday {3l10/16) to discuss with me the revised plans for the Pacific Wind project I must say however that I was very surprised fo learn last week from a 3/9/16 Union Tribune article (see attached) that the ''City Council approved a $7-4 million loan in 2012 ... " for your company to " ... purchase 21 of the duplex lots ..• " in the Assemblage. In our phone conversation you indicated the Ci1y loan has not yet beeri paid off and that the City holds a security interest in the properties that were purchased. Although I have not checked or confirmed in the public records that the City does have a security interest, I now have a better understanding why the City appears so willing to "abandon" Harding Street in order to insure that' your project is s uccessful. As I mentioned in our conversation, this revised pfan is significant improvement over the previously ptopose<tproject Attached are a few pages of the revised plans _which reflect a) there will now be 90 units {181-bedroom, 18 2-bedroom, and 54 3-bedroom) for this gated low income housing project; and b) there will be roughly four lots, APN's 204-291-35, 204-291-17, 204-292--01, and a portion of 204-292-16, ("Not Included Lots") in the original assemblage that wm not be a part of the project. In our conversation of 3/10, you stated you were still not certain. what your company was going to do with the other Not Included Lots on Magnolla Avenue and Harding Street You Indicated in our discussion that you could rehab them for rental, but at this point there is no clear plan. Although I still have some concerns about the future development for these Not Included Lots and their potential impact on the neighborhood, I do believe this revised plan is significantly better. The above being said I still have some concerns about the City's potential vacation/abandonment of Harding Street, v.ffllout the re-dedication and improvement of an alternative street to provide replacement access and street parkmg to the public and surrounding neighbors. To alleviate this _ concern, v.ould your company arni/or it's investors consider dedicating the Magnolia lots from Harding Street to the freeway (i.e. APN's 204-292-01 & portion of 204--292-16) as additional screened parking area for the development? This additional parking would take pressure off the surrounding streets rmmedlately outside your project. If your company and/or its investors ara willing to consider th~ alternative, J believe it woukl be a "fair trade or offset" to the public and · surrounding residents for tile City's proposed abandonment for the portion of Harding street that lies Within your proposed gated project Please give the above some thoughtful consideration and then caU me at your convenjence to further discuss the issue. During the interim, and by blind copy of this email, I am requesting written comments from your surrounding neighbors who have expressed an interest in being kept informed of your proposed development plans. I will do my best to provide you with their thoughts, comment and/or concerns as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please feel free to call me at your convenience. John "'"Pl.EASE NOll: NEW EMAlL AOORESS AND FIRM NAME-John Salley The eanay Legal Group 25014 Las 8risas Soutll, Sllita 8 l\1UtTleta, CA 92562 (951) 304-7566 Of!ic.e (9511 304-7571 Fa,; jbaUav@1b1ara,v com No virus found in this message. 6/9/2016 7:37 AM 0063 I I I i: ,. I I l ) ·-····-••'-•, .. • •••• ........ _,_,_,,~M~ ........ -· -·--·--··-·-----.. -000 .. .. ··-·---···~----··-·-----····-· ,._,, __ ___._. __ _ Cu·Jsbad I I I Pacific Wind Project-Revised:~ns (SDP 15-18 /M-. Ch~cked by AVG-www.avg.com Version: 2015.0. 62Ql / Virus Database: 4598/12373 -Release Oat~: 06/0.6/16 EXHIBIT 11 3 " ·of7 6/9/2016 7:37 AM 0064 I I I I a . ····-' - 0 0 _____________________ ....... _,_. -. -•••••• ..._ ....... ._,,-4,. Don Neu, City Planner THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP 25014 I.as Brisas Road Sooth, Suite B Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 Facsimile: (95]J 304-7571 March 28, 2017 City of Carlsbad Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Via email and U.S. mail Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Carlsbad /Pacific Wind Proiect(SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01) Dear Mr. Neu: I have received Associate Planner, Austin Silva's, letter dated February 22, 2017, which responds to my letter dated June 14, 2016, to you, as City Planner, concerning the above-referenced Project. When we met at the JuJy 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, you acknowledged receipt of my June l4, 20 I 6 letter and infonned me~ you would be responding to my letter. Mr. Silva makes a vague statement in his February 22nd letter that the traffic study (dated 8/23/16 and revised 11/29/16) " ... was reviewed by staff several times before it was recently accepted as a final complete version ... " in what appears to be an attempt to explain the approximately eight-month lapse of time that it took to respond to the issues raised in my letter of June 14, 2016 to you. Preliminarily, it appears that Mr. Silva's responses to my concerns, as delineated in his letter, are more in the form of"concJusions" ~ opposed to explanations. With that said, I will briefly set forth some of my concerns with regard to Mr. Silva's February 22, 2017 Jetter. Although Mr. Silva acknowledges that Harding Street does provide access betvveen Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place, he then makes conclusionary statements that" ... that access is primarily for the residents who live on Harding Street ... " and c, ___ provides additional parking primarily for the residents living oo Harding Street'' (Pg. 1, Item 1 ), and I 0065 l I l I ~ ~ I ~ I Iii I I I I I i I I l t ) u ........ _,,_._ .... ~ ---..-.. --..... -. ... -·····-,· ..... --. ···-· ... ·-_, ___ ................... ..--.-------·. Page Two March 28, 2017 that the " ... Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the development plan and no concerns were raised with access to and from the Project ... " (Pg. 2. Item 3). My impression from reviewing Mr. Silva's letter and the parking study, is .that it appears that the parking study was drafted for the primary pmpose of simply justifying the City's efforts to ultimately approve the Pacific Wind Project calii:ng for the abandonment of Harding Street. without requiring the developer to dedicate or construct a replacement street.' · Although a traffic eXpert will be needed to evaluate the parking study in more depth. I have noted in the August 23, 2016 study (as revised on November 29, 2016], that the parking survey was conducted from 1;00 a.111, to 7:00 p.m. on Jefferson Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, Harding Street and ~arol Place. during the weekdays. As I have been saying to City staff for the past year and a half, and as mentioned in my letter of June 14, 2016 to you, the time frame during which the demand for parking isat its J1igbest is 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Between the hours of7:00 am. to 7:00 p.m. during the week is when most of the residents in the neighborhood are working. and there is plenty cif street parking available. The relevant time frame for the parking study needed to include the time frame from 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., when demand is at its highest. Furthermore,. and more importantly, although the developer is demolishing 44 residential. units on F!arding S~t and Carol Place, it is replaeing those 44 dwelling units (primarily made up of two bedroom homes), with 93 residential ap~ent units {21 one bedroom, 18 two bedroom; and 54 three bedroom units). It is also my understanding that after approval of the Minor Subdivision (MS-16-01), the remaining parcels that will n.ot be a part of the Pacific Wind Project will later be developed into another 20-26 unit affordable housing project. · · While I appreciate there will be a regulatory agreement that will govern these affordable apartment units, the density in this development area is being more than doubled, and street parking and public access are being completely eliminated. Although the proposed on-site parking spaces (165) for this P:roject may be Code compliant for affordable housing, typical projects of this size would require 199 parking spaces under current Municipal Code section 2 J .44.020 Table A. · Mr. Silva also indicates that the City will be processing a CaJifomia Environmental Quality Act (''CEQN') exemption for the Project under the affordable housing exemption. Please let a copy of this correspondence serve as my formaJ request that the Planning 0066 I I I I I i ·-_ .. -....... .... . ... -- 0 0 _ ... 1 ...... • .... - . ___ .. _ .. ,...,~,), ... ___ ... --.. ., ___ -···i .. -·---,. ~ ... ,· Page Three March 28, 2017 I ------.. n :· s Commission, on April 5, 2017, deny approval of the Site Plan for the Pacific Wind Project, SD P I 5-I 8/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01, on the·gr-0unds that I believe the City's planning staff has wrongfully detennined that the Project is exempt from CEQA wider: section 15194 of the California Code of Regulations. As a threshold matter, m order for the Project to avait itself of this particular-exemption, the Project must also meet the criteria in section 15192. [, as a resident and/or stakeholder of Carlsbad, take issue with the approvaJ of the Project because of the procedural and substantive defects and unique impacts of the Project on the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the Project will have substantive impacts on the environment and the quality of life for the surr~ding neighbors, school, and the community at large. The bases of my concerns, as well as some of my neighbors, are as follows: . (I) Conflicts with transportation, circulation, economy, noise, and air quality elements and goals wider the existing General Plan forth is area and the proposed Village and · Barrio Master Plan, as revised April 2016 ("Plan"), to wit: . . ( a) The change in use may create patterns of transportation and circulation that conflict with Plan goaJs for open pedestrian, bicycle and traffic movement through t.l-te neighborhood; (b) Loss of parking spaces and the abandonment of street access may create patterns of transportation that conflict with Plan goals and the needs of the surrounding neighbors and the overall community; ( c) The Project may have a negative impact on the local economy and tax revenues; ( d) The change in transportation and circulation ~ttems may have adverse air quality impacts. (2) The changing nature of the parcel, with attendant changes in trip generation, queuing, parking requirements, and urban decay, should have prompted some initial 0067 l f I I I I I I ------------~-----··· ... ---~-A------··· ... .,.._ .. --·--···-·--1:---_,. __ .., __ ___. ..... -., ·--··· ·-·--·--·-'""· Page Four March 28. 2017 ) environmental review pursuant to CEQA under Public Resources Code sections 21000, et seq., and (a) The Project'does not meet all the criteria set forth in section 15192; (b) The Project does meet the criteria set forth in section 15194; and ( c) It is clear the developer is splitting this Har:diog Street Assemblage and'. will, in effect, increase the size of the Project in the future to well over I0Ounits, in violation of section 15192(0) and 15194(d)(l). In addition to the above, f bave also read the case· and statute cited in Mr. Silva's February 22nd letter. While Citizens for RespoosibTeEguiiableEnvironmentaJ Development v. Ci:fY of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1032, 109 Cal.R.ptr3d 702, confirms that a street can be abandoned or vacated under the Subdivision Map Act without" ... compliance with the Streets and Highway Code procedures and findings," it is not without limitation. Mr. Silva and [ discussed in early 20·16 the initial draft of tWs Project that originally called for the abandonment ofi{arding Street and Carol Place. During those discussions, Mr. Silva indicated to me that he and other City staff were not opposed to the abandomnent of Harding Street, but City staff would not consent to the abandonment of Carol Place. For that reason, and perhaps for other reasons, the developer-submitted the plans to call for just the abandonment of Harding Street and not Carol Place. The abandonment procedure under the Subdivision Map Act is discretionary. In fact, Government Code section 664450), which Mr. Silva cites in his February 22nd letter, states) in pertinent part: "Before a public easement vested in another public entity may be abandoned pursuant to this section, that public entity shall receive notice of the proposed abandonment. No public easement vested in another public entity shall be abandoned pursuant to this section if that public entity objects to the proposed abandonment" (Emphasis added) In light offhe above, should the City, or any other public agency which has an interest in Harding Street, object for any reason to the abandonment ofJlarding Street, it will riot and cannot be approved under the Subdivision Map Act procedure. In this situation, it appears the City has a direct conflict of interest in that it has a financi~ interest in the Project, whi)eatthesame tirneit mustJook out for what is in the best 0068 l I I r. ------··-·--······ "· .. --.. --••• .# Page Five March 28, 2017 0 • -................. ___ .,_,> ...... ,_ ___ ., .. ______ • f4 V ·····-· .. ----· ....... ·------- • • •r ····-·,., ·• .,__ .,. __ .,._, ___ ___,_ - interests of the surrounding residents and the public in general. It appears, from my view, that the City staff is putting the interests of the developer and the City's financial interests in this Project ahead of what is in the best interests of the surrounding neighbors and the public in general to have open access to an existing and fully improved public street This is particularly troublesome in that this area is already heavily impacted with a suostantial shortage of available street parking. Furthennore, and as I previously stated, if Harding Street is abandoned, the only access point into the South side of this residential neighborhood will be restricted solely to Jefferson at Magnolia. The Plan (revised April 2016) calls for the Village and Barrio to have open and free access for pedestrians and bicycles. In fact, the Plan calls for a pedestrian access point to be put in off of Magnolia Avenue to Anchor Way" ... with a sidewalk and . provide safe-passage to children heading to school." (Master P)an, Part l , Item l(j), pg. 2.6, . revised April 2016). · The abandonment ofHarding Street under the current proposed Project plan, without a replacement street. is in direct conflict with what City staff is advocating under the proposed Village and Barrio Master Plan. In other words, the abandonment of Harding Street would leave all children and their parents ~ the neighborhood with Jefferson/Magnolia as the only access point to and from Jefferson Elementary. I strongly urge you and your City staff to reconsider any approval for the abandonment of Harding Street and/or the gating off of this area, which will hinder and prevent surrounding neighbors, and the public in .general, from having access through this area, unless the developer builds a replacement street and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA. Should you have any questions orneed any further clarifications regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, JLB:kg Cc: Planning Commission Members: Honorable Velyn Anderson, Chairman Honorable Marty Montgomery John 0069 I I I I €_ ) '·-.... ---··"·-·----·---~------·--·-······· .. .... . ---·-·· Page Six March 28, 2017 Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Siekmann Honorable Stephen "Hap" L' Heureux Honorable Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts (Via email only c/o Planning Commission Clerk at planning@carJsbadca.gov) City Council Members: Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor (matt.hall@carlsbadcagov) u Honorable Keith Blackbum (keith.blackbum@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Mark Packard (mark.packard@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Cori Schumacher ( cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov) Honorable Michael Schumacher (michaeLscbuniacher@carlsbc'.',dca.gov) (Via email only) Neighbors (Via email only) Austin Silva (Via email_ only) 0070 . -··-' .. ... .............. ,.. -../ __ ., ____ -· 0 0 Carlsbad / / V"tllage & Barrio Master Plan 1 of3 Subject: carlsbad //Village~ Barrio Master Plan From: John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> Date: 6/3/2017 2:07 PM To: Matt Hall <matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov> CC: Kathi LaCroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com>, Judy Rickard <jrickard@tblglaw.com> Mayor Hall, I understand that the City Attorney has advised alJ City Council Members not to meet with me to discuss Pacifk.Wind Project. I am also aware that because you own and/or have an interest in property located fn the Village/Barrio you may have to re~se yourself from any vote relating to the Village & Barrio Master Plan. However, as a voter/resident of the Barrio I would like to briefly discuss with you some of my concerns about the pending Village & Barrio Master Plan. I have already met with Mr. Blackburn and Mr.Schumacher and I am trying to arrange meetings wfth Council Members Packard and Cori Schumacher. Would you or your secretary/assistant please contact me, Kathi or Judy In our office to schedule a date and time . for us to meet.at your Council office conference room? The meeting should take less tan 30 "minutes. Sincerely, John John Bailey The &trey legal Group 25014 Las Brlsas South, Suite 8 Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 304-7566 Office . (951) 304-7571 Fax iballey@tbJglaw.com --Forwarded Message --- I - Subject:Carfsbad // Village & Barrio Master Plan// Pacific Wind Project (SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01) Oate:Fri, 5 May 2017 10:55:24 -0700 From:John Bailey <ibailey@tblglaw.com> To:Mart Hall <matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov> Honorable Mayor Hall, By the way ..... J am requesting this meeting as a registered voter and dtizen/resident of the 2/23/2018 2:16 PM · 0071 l 1 i I l • I I a I 8 I I I ~ I ¥ l\: I I I I ... -~ ... -........ ------·-----·· ----·--------··--·-------1 ... ____ .................. ·-,-.... -..... -----·----... --- c;arlsbad / / Village & Barrio Master Plan Barrio, not as an attorney representing some community group. Be~ Regards, John ---Forwarded Message---· Subject:Cartsbad //Village & Barrio Master Plan// Pacific Wind Project (SOP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01) Date:Fri, 5 May 2017 09:34:40 -0700 From:John Balley <jbailey@tblglaw.com> To:Matt Hall <matt.hall@carrsbadca.gov> CC;Ka~hi Lacroix <klacroix@tbJglaw:com>, Judy Rickard <irickard@tblglaw.com> Honorable Mayor Hall, As a voter and resident of Carlsbad, it would b~ greatly appreciated if you would please make some time available to meet with me next week to discuss the above Items. I recall from a prior telephone conversation we had that because you have some interests io parcels within the ViRage or Barrio you will likely have to recuse yourself from issues be{ore the City Council relating to the proposed Village & Barrio Master Plan. However I do not believe you will nor should recuse yourself on issues relating to the Paciflc Wind Project. Therefore f woufd like to at least discuss this Project with you even if you cannot discuss the Village & Barrlo Master Plan. I can meet you for lunch, coffee and/or at your office, whatever time and location is most convenient for ,you. Would you or your secretary/assistant please contact me, Kathi or Judy in our office to schedule a date, time and location that ls most convenient for your schedule. Thank you. Sincerely, John John Bailey The Bailey Legal Gtoup 25014 las BrisasSouth, Suite B Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 304-7S66 Office (951) 304--7571 Fa>< ibailey@tblglaw.com CONRDENTJAUTV NOTICf~The informatio,, contained in this electronic mall rnl!SSilge isconfidennal information fntended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is Intended to be directed. The sender of this message is a Member of the State Bar of California, and its contents may be privileged from disclosure under the Attornoy Client Privilege, the 2 of3 2/23/2018 2:16 PM 0072 ... ··--···--··-.. ·····----·---~--------·-··---· ····------'~-~- 0 -----·-----·--------· -·----·--·-·------··--···•·· ---·-_.,., _______ ,, Carlsbad I I Village & Barrio Master Plan 3of3 Attorney Work Product Privilege, the Right of Privacy cont.lined rn the California constitution, and o1her ri.ghts and privileges that preclude disclosure of confidential information. The Information in this message may also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 use Sections 2510-2.521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please ilI)JTiedlately notify the sender by return e-mail -0r at the telephone number above and defete the original mes!..lge. Virus.-free. www.avg.com -~· ~. ----·· 2/2312018 2:16 PM 0073 I I K ,. l._.J . -1-•---'•··-----·---, ... ,. .......... - Carlsbad// Village & Barrio Master Plan Subject: Carlsbad// Village & Barrio Master Plan From: John Bailey <jbaiJey@tblglaw.com> Date: 6/3/2017 1;54 PM To: Mark Packard <mark.packard@carlsbadca.gov> CC: Kathi Lacroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com> BCC: Judy Rickard <jrickard@tblglaw.com> Mark, Have you discussed this again with your legal counsel? Will you meet with me to just discuss the pending Village & Barrio Master Plan? John John Balley The B.illey Legal Group 25014 las Brisas South, Suite B Murrleta,CA 92562 {951) 304-7566 Office (951) 304-7571 Fa,r jballey@tblglaw.com ---Forwarded Message --- Subject:: Carlsbad // Village & Barrio Master Plan Date:Fri, 26 May 2017 16:34:28 -0700 From:John Bailey <ibail~y@tbfglaw.co m> To:Mar1< Packard <mark.packard@carJsbadca.gov> CC:Kathi Lacroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com>, Judy Rickard <jrickard@tblglaw.com> Mark, I unde rstand not meeting with me about Pacific Wind but I do not want to discuss that project. As a voter/resident of the City I would like to briefly discuss with you some of my concerns about the pending Village & Barrio Master Plan. I have already met with Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Schumacher. Please discuss this again with your legal counsel about limiting our discussions to just the Village & Barrio Master Plan and then let me know. Thanks, l of4 Z/29/20182:17 PM 0074 I i j f i I i I I I ---------.. ----------- 0 0 -------··--··-·---·. ·----····. ------·-····-~-·-·---·--·----<-·-· --..... Carlsbad // V1.llage & Barrio Mast'er Plan 2of4 John John Bailey The Bailey l~I Group 25014 Las Brisas South, Suite B Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 304-7566 Office (951) 304-1571 Fax lbailey@tblglaw.com --Forwarded Message---- Subject:Re: Carlsbad / / VIiiage & Barrio Master Plan Date:Fri, 26 May 2017 23:09:55 +0000 From:Mark Packard <Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov> _ To:John Bailey <ibailey@tblglaw.com> Our legal counsel has recommended that we not meet with you because you are legal counsel, w hich advice I will follow. Mark Sent from my iPad On May 26, 2017, at 4:00 PM, John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> wrote: r f Honorable Councilman Packard, f l It would be greatly appreciated if you would please make some time available to meet with me sometime over the next couple of weeks to discuss the proposed Village & Barrio Master Plan. Woufd you or your secretary/assistant please contact me, Kathi or Judy in our office to schedule a date and time for: us to meet. The meet should take Jess tan 30 minutes. Sincerely, John John Bailey 25014 Las Brisas South, Suite B Murrieta, CA 92562 {9S1) 304-7566 Office (951) 304-7571 Fax jbailev@tblglaw.com I l I I 2/23/2018 2:17 PM 0075 ·---...... -..... -_ .. ,.......... •• -~· ...... -,..,,_ ... +. • •••• ·-·-·-· --~--..... 1 ••••• Carlsbad / /Village & Barrio Master Plan 3of4 l . J ----·Forwarded Message -- 11;-Subject!Fwd: Re: Carlsbad //Village & Barrio Master Plan.// Pacific:Wind Project (SDP • 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01) I Date:Fri, 5 May 2017 09:53:58 -0700 From:John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> I To:Mark Packard <mark.packard@c~rlsbadca..goV> l I Citizen/Barrio resident, I Joh11Bailey The Bailey Legal Group 25014 I.as Brisas South, SI.lite B J Murrieta, CA 92562 I (951) 304-7566 Office I {951)304-7571 Fax r jbaifey@tblglaw.com I CONADENTIALITY NOTICE: The infonnation contained In this electronic mail message Is confidential information intended only for the use of tha individual or entity to whom it is intended to be directed. The sender of this message is a Member of the state Bar of California, and Its contents may be privileged from disliloSlire under the Attorney Client Prlvllege, the Attorney Work Product Privilege, the Right of Privacy contained in the California Constitutioi,, and other rjghts and priVileges that preclude disclosure of confidential information. The Information in this message may also be protected by the .Electronic Commullications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. lfthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copymg of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please imrnediately notify the sender oy retvrn e-mail or at tile telephone number above and delete the original message. i I 1 I I i I i I f i I -------Forwarded Message --I Subject:Re: carlsbad // Village & Barrio Master PJan // Pacific Wind Project (SDP 15-18/CDP 16-04/MS 16-01) , Date:Fri, 5 May 201716:50:59 +0000 From:Mark Packard <Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov> To:John Bailey <ibailev@tblglaw.com> I f Are you wanting to meet as a citizen of Carlsbad, or as an attorney representing some group? I ! Sent from my iPad i j On May 5, 2017, at 8:59 AM, John Bailey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> wrote: l t f i 1 2/23/2018 2:17 PM 0076 r , V 0 .. --..... , ... __,. ___ . Carlsbad // Village & Barrio Master Plan I I 4of4 Honorable Councilman Packard, As a voter and resident of Carlsbad, it would be greatly appreciated if you would please make some time available to meet with me next week to discuss the above items. I can meet you for lunch, coffee and/or at your office, whatever is most conveni~nt to you. Would you or your secretary/assistant please contact me, Kathi or Judy in our office to schedule a date, time and location that is most convenient for your schedule. Thank you. Sincerely, John John Balley The .BaJJey Legal Group 25014 las Brisas South, SUite B Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 304-756601fice (951) 3~7571 Fax jbajley@tblglaw.com CONFJDENTIAUTY NOTICE: The Information contained In this electronic mail mes.sa&e is conlidentfal information Intended only for the use of the indrvi~ual or entity to who1t1 it is Intended to be directed. The sender of this message ls a Member ofthe State Bar of California, and its tontents may be privileged from disclosure under the Attorney cnent Prlllllege, the Attorney Work Product PrMlege, the Right of Privacy contained in the Caftfornia Constitutfon, and other rights. and pr!Vileges that preclude disclosure of confidential information. The information in this message may also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 1B USC Sections 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended redpient, you are heleby notified that any dissemination, dtstrlbution or copying of this communication ls sttictly prohibited, If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the.sender by return e-mail or at the telephone number above and'deletetbe original message. -Virus-free. www.ayg.com t ! I I , I I I I ' I f I I l I 2/23/2018 2:17PM 0077 I I I I i () () THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP Scott Donnell Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 25014 las Brisas Road South. Suite B Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (951) 304-7566 facsimile: (951) 304-7571 February 20r 2018 Community and Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue .,_ -,.. ' ...... Carlsbadr CA 92008-7314 Via email and O.S. mail Re: Carlsbad Zoning/Village and Barrio Master Plan (Revised January 2018) · Dear Scott: I have now haa an opportunity to review the January 2018 Revised Village and Barrio Master Pl~ ("1/18 Master Plan") . .... --~ --· ,·· The pw:pose of this lette,r is 'to_ provide, among othe:r things, my comments and·· concerns about the revised. 1/18 Master Plan in light of the issues and concerns I outlined in my: a) ·December 22, 2015 letter addressed · to you, Austin Silva and Jason King relating to the Master Plan published in November 2015; and b) my May 26, 2016 letter addressed to you concerning the April 2016 Revised Master Plan. A. Parking Standards Unfortunately, I see that the revised 1/18 Master Plan still proposes a one-third (l/3) reduction in required resident parking spaces for multi-fami-ly dwelling-s in the· Village and Barrio. (See 1/18 Master Plan, Chapter 2, Tab.le 2-3, Page 2-22.) Furthepnore, the l/18 Master Plan: a) only requi·res visitor parking for· new co-nst_:ruction in the Barrio perilt\eter and Barrio Center; b) no visitor parking in the Village a~d surrounding areas; and c) apparently no garage or c9vered parking for multi-family dwellings and/or c9ndominiums. (See 1/18 Master Plan, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, Page 2-22 and Figure 2-1, Page 2-2.) This subs~antial reduction .in required paxking standards will, without a doubt, have a severe negative impact upon the Village and Barrio in the long term. Enclosed is a "Sample of Local Minimum Parking .Reguire.ments (Revised 2/15/18)" {"Revised Earking SUllllllary"), which I prepared and updated from my December 22, 2015 letter. This Revised Pa.eking Summary summarizes the general minimum parking requirements fqr a hypothetical 120-unit (30 one-bedroom, 30 two-bedroom, and 60 three-bedroom) project in Carlsbad under the existing Codes, and the 1/18 Master Plan, and. compares them to some 0078 I I I I. f, I r I l (, I i I I I I i I i I I t I I ~ I 0 ' ---··"··-•• ____ ...__...,;.t,,. __ •• G, ... Page Two February 20, 2018 other surrounding beacb cities. As can be seen by the attached Revised Parkifig Summary, the difference between the new Code revisions under the 1/18 Master Plan [to reduce parking space requirements) in comparison to Carlsbad's current standards and those of the other surrounding ·ci~ies will be substantial . · I do not believe it is in dispute that the beach and downtown areas in San Diego, Encinitas, San Clemente, and other surrounding beach cities already have significant parking issues, disputes and problems. Based upon these comparable numbers, it is easily foreseeable and undeniabl e that within the next ten years the parking problems and demands in the Village an9 Barrio will be far more severe than what other San Diego County beach cities are currently experiencing with their higher parking standards: For example, the parking requirements for: a 120-unit in ·the beach area of San Diego would require 324 parking spaces. The current Carlsbad Code (21.44.020 Table A)would require 255 spaces, but the Revised 1/18 Master PJ.aa i n the Vil·lage would only require 165 spaces, almost half of what San Diego beach area now requires. it defies common sense and essentially· · turns a "blind eye" to the potential problems that will be created by these proposed reduced parki ng standards in the Village and Barrio. It is understood that the Village has a coastal train "transit'' station that could potentially reduce the· parking needs for the Village. However, even u·nder the City of San Diego's statutory scheme, the parking standards are i~creased when the "transit" hub is located in a high "impact area" such. as a beach or; school zone (see Fn 3 to Revised Parking Summary). J t appears that the .same increased parking standards should apply to the Village and Bai:;rio proposed Master Plan. More astounding is that t.be proposed parking standards under the revised 1/18 Master Plan are even lower than the parking s tandards for affordable housing density bonuses under current Municipal Code section 21.86.090(G) Table E (i.e., 1 BR -1 space; 2-3 BR -2 spaces; 4 or more BR -2.5 spaces). Based on these afford.able housing bonuses, a 120-unit project mentioned in the Revised Parking Summary would require 210 spaces. In other words, the revised 1/18 Master Plan is proposing new parking standards below our current affordable housing standards and will, i n fact, be the lowest parking standards 'for any beach city in San Diego County, and perhaps all of Southern California. Again, I strongly encourage City staff to am~nd the 1/18 Master Plan to retain the current visitor and -:resident parkinq standards, including gcrages and cove.red parking, which-are set forth in the Municipal Code Section 21.44.020 Table A. B. Minor Pec:ni t Review I was pleased to see that tbe "Minor Site Development Plan" standards for new construction " ... J.lP to 5,000 square feet _ .. " have still been retained. (See 1/18 Master Plan Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3, Page 6-4.) However, ! am still concerned that items A(4} and J.\(6) under "~linor Site 0079 I I I i ··-·l·. ,• __ ..! . ... -------.... Page Three February 20, 2018 ..... ..... f, ·.·J Development Plan" at page 6-4, are sUll overly broad and ambiguous. As discussed in my December 22, 2015 correspondence and my May 26, 201 6 l etter, this vague description could and will encompass a broad array of issues that are more appropriately :reserved for the Planning Commission. Therefore, I again request that City staff revisit this issue and revise the language in these sections to read as follows: "6.3.3 Permit Types A. Minor Site Development Plans. 4 . .Additions to existing structures which result in a cumulative increase of internal floor area of ten percent (lOt) or less regardless of the square footage." "6. Changes io Permitted Land Oses which result in a ten percent {10%) or .less of increas~ in site changes, increased traffic, or increased parking requlrements.n . . As noted in my prior correspondence, the above proposed revisions would · still enable City staff to ·address small issues that arise, but reserves to the Planning Commission "changes" that vary significantly from what are Code compliant and/or have already been approved by the Planning Co.mmission. As always, I truly appreciate your professional courtesy· and cooperation as we work through these issues. I f you have any questions r egarding my cdmments above, pleas~ feel free to call me at your earliest opportunity. By: JLB:kg cc: City Counci.J. (U.S. mail only} Honorable Matt Hallr Mayor Honorable Keith Blackburn Honorable Mark Packard Honorable Lorraine Wood Honor~le Michael Schumacher P1anoing Commission (U.S. Mail only) Honorable Jeff Segall_, Chairman Honorable Ve.lyn Anderson Honorable Marty Montgomery Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable -.Kerry Sielanann Honorable Lisa Rodman Honorable Jeff Segall Honorable Patrick Goyarts Pam Drewr Associate Planner (~ia email only) Barrio Neighbors (via emai l only) 0080 I ! I I I l i I .. i I i I I ~ ~ ~ I I 1, 0 0 ·-···----··-·----··"'·---Jo--.----·· ..... ----..... C) c, Sample of Local Minimum Parking Requirements (Revised 2/15118) Belqw is a table listing some local beach cities' general minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing,. that also references the Municipal Code section under which the requirements are established. For comparison pwposes, the tequired off-street parking spaces, including guest pa.king, was calculated for a hypothetical 120 unit development consisting of: 30 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units. and 60 three bedroom units. The municipalities are listed from the lowest average required spaces per unit to the highest M"mimum Required Parking Spaces pa Unit Hypothetical 120 Unit Multi-Family Developments (by Unit Type, Development Guest fQ! all Uoi!fil Total Spaces Per Oceanside 313103 Carlsbad 21.44.020 Table A Solana Beach 17.52.040 San Clemente 17.64.050 Table Encinitas :35.54.030 San Diego 142.0525 Table l 42.05C1 a)Basic b) Transit/low income3 c) Beach/school impact l BR ·1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 15 1.25 1.75 2BR 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1.75 2.25 ·JBR 2 2 2 2.5 2.5 2.25 2.0 2.5 Proposed Draft Master Plan (Revised .January 2018) Village/SurroWtding Area 1 1.5 1..5 Barrio Center/ Perini. 11 l.S 1.5 Guest l plus20%of total units 25/unit .2S/unit 0333/unit .45/unit 220% of total off street parking required " .. -0- .25/uoit Spaces 250 255 255 295 300 288 252 324 165 195 Unit 2.08 2.12 2.12 2.45 25 2.4 2..l 2.7 1.37 X.63 No~ All of the above are merely the number of required parking spaces.. This list does not include the additional regulations cities impose such as requiring that at least one space per unit be covered, etc. 1 San Diego Code requires more pa,king for developments that are ..... at least partially within a designated beach impact area ... " and transit/affor-dable housing areas so aU three calculations are provided. 2 San Diego Code allows some flexibilil,y for commoo area/visitor parking to iocrease or decrease based on the area affected by IJ1c development 3 "Development qualifying for botb a reduced parking ratio (trnnsiJ area or very [0111 inct>me parking ratio) and an increased parking ra1io (Parki11g Impact Area) shall also use the basic ,. parking ratio.'' (Footnote I for Table 142.0SC) · 0081 I I I l I I I f j I l I I I. ! I I g 'J f ' \ 0 ~---~ ., -'·-·----~·--·· --··---··' ---·-----·--· n THE BAILEY LEGAL GROUP Scott Donnell Senior Planner ' City of Car lsb ad . 25014 Las Brisas Road South, Suite 8 Murrieta. California 92562 Telephone:"(951) 304-7566 Facsimile: '(951) 30ll-7571 February 21, 2018 community and Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Vi a email and U.S. mail Re: carisbad Zoning/Village and Barrio Master Plan (Revised January 2018) Dear Scott: I just noticed a typo in the "Sample of Local Minimum Parking Requirement s (Revis.ed 2/15/18)" ("Revised Parking Summary"'), that was attached to my letter dated February 20, 2018. Under "Barrio Center/Peritu." ·r inadvertentl y put·.,'.'11" when it shoul tl have been a "1.,,_ Ac cordingly, please f ind an attache.a. R~vi sed Parking Summary that corrects the error. · In addition to the above, I have reviewed the "Carlsbad Village Master Pl an and Design Manual'' that was revised as of June 2013 ("2013 Manual"). Chapter 6 of the 2013 Manual deals with the "parking program" in the Village and contains parking standards for single and multi-family dwellings {at page 180), which I believe control over the standards set forth in Municipal Code sections set forth in Chapter 21.44 (see page 177). I t is my understanding that it is the City's intent to set aside or override the pa rking standards set forth in Chapter 6 of the 2013 Manual,· with those standards for the Village .ihicll are delineated in the Village & Barri o Master Plan, revised. January 2018 . Please advise if my understanding is correct, and/or if there ax:e some other parking standards that are going to apply und er.the January 2018 Revised Master.Plan. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and I look forward to hearing from you r egarding the above. JLB:kg Enclosure Sincerely, By: 0082 I 0 --·--·--.... •·· ·--____ ,. ., _ .. ___ ,. .... -·-----·-·--<---·-·-··----···-.···· {') Page Two February 21, 2018" cc: City Council (0.S. mail only) Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor Honorable Keith Blackburn Honorabl e Mark Packard Honorable Cori Schumacher Honorable Michael Schumacher ·· Planning Collllllission (U.S. Mail only) Honorable Jeff Segall, Chairman Honorable Velyn Anderson ·Honorable Marty Montgomery. Honorable Arthur Niel Black Honorable Kerry Sielanann Honorable Lisa Rodman Honorable Jeff Segall ~: Honorable Patrick Goyarts -n Pam Drew, Associate Pl anner {via .email only) Barrio Neighbors (via email. ouly) n ---·---··· --··------' ____ ., 0083 I t I I \ __ ) ---·-·-· _"_, ___ -· .. ... -.... 4··-----·-..... , ·----····· ·----....... ,--···-· • Sample of Local Minimum 'fding Requirements {Revised 2/15/18) i) Below is a table lisdng some local beach cities' general minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing, lhat also references the Municipal Code 5t:ction under which the requirements are established. For comparison purposes, the r~uired off-street parking spaces, including guest parking, was calculated for a hypothetical 120 unit development consisting of: 30 one bedroom units, 30 two bedroom units, and t';0 three bedroom units. The_ municipalities are fisted from the lowest average required spaces per unit to the highest Minimum Required Parking Spaces per Unit Hypothetical 120 Unit Multi-Family Developments (by Unit Type, Development Quest for all Unit~} h Total Spaces Per !BR 2BR 3BR '"':<:. Guest Spaces Unit Oceanside 1.5 2 2 l plus20% of 31.3103 total units 250 2.08 Carlsbad 1.5 2 2 .25/unit 255 2.12 21.44.020 Table A Solana Beach .. I.S 2 2 .25/unit 255 2.12 17.52.040 San Clemente 1.5 2 2.5 "!-0.3:33/unit 295 2.45 17.64.050 Table Encinitas 2· 2 2.S .25/unit 300 2.5 35.54.0J0 San Diego 142.0525 Table 142.0SC' a) Basic 1.5 2.0 2.25 220% of total off 288 2.4 b) Transit/low ~i street parking required income3 1.25 1.75 2.0 " 252 2.1 c) Beach/school impact 1.75 2.25 2.5 .. 324 2.7 Proposed Draft Master Piao (Revised January 2018) Village/Surrou11ding Area 1 l.S LS -0-165 1.37 Barrio Center/ Perim. 1 1.5 1.S .25/unit 1!>5 l.93 Note: All of the above arc merely the nomberof required parking spaces . .This list do~ not include the additional regulations cities impose such as requiring that at l~l on~ space per unlt be covered, etc. .. , 1 San Diego Code requires more parking for developments that are'' ... at least partially wilhin a designated beach impact area ... " and transit/affordable housing areas so all three calculations are provided. 2 San Diego Code allows some flexibility for common area/visitor parking to increase or decrease based on the area affected by the devefop\Jlent. 3 "Development qualifying for both a reduced parking ratio (Lrtmsit nrea nr very 1<>111 income parking ratio) and .an increased par.king ratio (Parking Impact Area) shl'IJI also use tbe basic parking ratio." (Fo~tnocc l for Table 142.0SC) 0084 I •I I I l I I ,. I fi I I 0 0 . .,,., ·~-·---··-• .. ----··-·" ... ,._,. _.,.,_ ,,,.,. ,L------·,. .. Ca_rlsbad Z9nlng / VlUage and Barrio Master-~~)· Revised Jan. 2018 f:') f' '. of3 ·., .. , Subject: Carlsbad Zoning/ Village and Barrio Master Plan, Revised Jan. 2018 From: John Baifey <jbailey@tblglaw.com> Date: 2/21/2018 2:09 PM To: Scott DonneU <scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov> CC: Pam Drew <Pam.Orew@carlsbadca.gov>, Kathi LaCroix <klacroix@tblglaw.com> BCC: Veronica Ruiz <varuiz99@idoud.com>, Claudia Gay <Coastaldaudia@aol.com>, "Andrew Clay Jr." <FireFighterday@gmail.com>, Peter Matthews <Petemoss29@hotmail.com>, Curtis & Elida Becker <curtistaxi@yahoo.com>, Robert & Catherine Gudee <C.guddee@yahoo.com>, Sarah Cordonner <tnonkbowf@yahoo.com>, Kenneth Mcnulty <kennymcnulty@gmail.com>, Merrill & Jane Balser <mnjbalser@cox.net>, Carol Johnson <lbathurstn@gmail.com>, Jesus & Esther Ortiz <tequilero1950@yahoo.com>, Lionel & Sue Jarrad <Ljarrard@yahoo.com>, Carolyn Martus <CarolynMartus@gmail.com>, Linda Salazar <lindag841@hotmail.com>, Amanda Mazza <mandymazza@hotmail.com>, Cheleen Orey <cheleeno@gmail.com>, Clay Orey <clay.orey@yahoo.com>, Marie Moreland <Mariemccarthymoreland@gmail.com>, Michael Moreland <Micknuget@yahoo.com>, Etnilio & Martha Gonzalez <surcmls@aol.com>, Connie Nikolaidis <connie.n@cox.net>, "Dr. Fred M. Johnson" <drfmjohnson@hotmail.com>, Sherrie Smith <coastalquilting@yahoo.com>, Michael Hedrick <karl~badsurf@yahoo.com>, Marianne Bremseth <bremsethmarianne@gmail.com>, Cindi Vigne <seawatcher99@gmail.com>, Scott/ Patti :lawor <sjawor@roadrunner.com>, Jane Cassity <Jcassity@dsbsi . .com>, Anne Harrison <ajflnehomes@gmail.com>,_ Gaty Smith <GarySmithNSD@gmail.com>, Renee Huston <RENEENEWS@hotmail.com>, Jolee White <jmennaid@ymail.com>,Julie Ajdour <michaelajd@yahoo.com>1 Ronda Ussery <rondaussery@gmail.com>, David Hernandez. <Davidhernandez8084@gmail.com>, Marissa Torres <Marissatt@gmail.com>, Everett Delano Ill <everett@delanoanddelano.com> Scott, Attached is a letter dated February 21, 2018 addressed to you, attaching a corrected. Revised Parking Summary. The original letter is being sent out today by U.S. first class mall. Best Regards, John John Bailey The Bailey Legal Group 25014 las Brlsas South, Suite B Murrieta, CA 92562 (951.) 304-7566 Office (951) 304-7571 Fax ibailey@tblglaw.com ----Forwarded Message --- Subject:RE: Carlsbad Zoning/ Village and Barrio Master Plan, Revised Jan. 2018 2/21/2018 2:09 PM 0085 I I I I I From: To: Subject: Date: areysb·ergen@juno.com Scott Donnell please -keep the new structures In our Village -LESS than 4 stories Thursday, March 01, 2018 11:39:05 AM the maximum allowable height of buildings in the Carlsbad Village should be less than 45ft (four story), down to something more compatible with the existing structures -it just makes sense ! we residents/property owners want to keep OUR historic village in tact .... thank you, Alice and Terry Reysbergen resident/Carlsbad property owner/registered VOTER From: To: Subject: Date: Dear Scott, Albert Mendoza Scott Donnell maximum allowable height of buildings in the carlsbad Village to be less than 45ft Thursday, March 01, 2018 12:58:05 PM We live in Carlsbad Ca, 3627 Contour place, and would prefer the maximum allowable height of buildings in the Carlsbad Village to be less than 45ft (four story), down to something more compatible with the existing structures, Thank you for your time Albert Mendoza From: To: Subject: Date: Dave Scott Donnell Carlsbad VIiiage building height Thursday, March 01, 2018 6:58:51 PM Hi Scott. I purchased my home· in Carlsbad Village 4 years ago because I like the small-town feel.. I know progress is always needed, but I would prefer to keep the small/old town feel by keeping building height no more than 35 feet. Thank you! David Luebbert 92008 From: To: Subject Date: Jan Lewis Scott Donnell Building heights Thursday, March 01, 2018 6:23:09 PM Please keep the building heights in Carlsbad, especially in our quaint downtown, less than 3 stories. Thank.you! Jan Lewis 4784 Beachwood Ct. Carlsbad, CA Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject: Date: Dear Mr. Donnell-- J Cannon Scott Donnell Village/Barrio Standards Thursday, Mardi 01, 2018 5:37:13 PM Am writing to express my concern about the inconsistent policies that seem to be governing Village/Banio development. l understand that there has been a vision within the Carlsbad City Planning Department for the State Street and Carlsbad Village Drive intersection to be treated as a "gateway" to the old main street part of the village. Th.is involves keeping the buildings in this area low profile so as to invite a view into the streets and the shops and restaurants they offer. Yet other staff have been assigned to advocate for the recent proposal by developer Leor Lal<ritz to build a curb-to- curb 45' tall building on theuortbwestcorner of that intersection. As Councilmember Blackburn pointed out in a recent Council meeting, people traveling east from Carlsbad Boulevard would see a 45' wall, and not have any incentive to turn left onto State Street-literally a "Nothing to see here" situation. Laktitz is gaming the system to avoid complying with traffic/parking/fair housing and regulation of vacation rentals. Not only is he getting city approval to permanently alter the course of what the citizenry wants to see in the Village/Barrio-but also bucks the stated mission of tl1e city when it speaks of maintaining the small town feel. Lakritzowns the buildings in the center of the west side of State Street. I can't help but asswne that tfhis Big Box on the Comer is approved, He will instantly apply for permits to raze Barrel Republic/Vigilucci's and bwld similarly massive structures in. the center of the Village. Do you really think that this type of developer is who we want dictating the course of our city's development? I could safely say that the majority of Carlsbad citizens as well as the many tourists who come here year after year would say otherwise. Thank you for considering these views, JaneU Cannon From: To : Subject Date: Carol Scurlock Scott Donnell Village Thursday, March 01, 2018 5:14:55 PM Scott AB a long time resident and property owner in Carlsbad, we are very concerned about what is happening with the oversized buildings that are so NOT in character with the Village ambiance. Why oh why can't the Council and City staff listen and act on the concerns of so many. We do not live here just to cater lo tourists. Thls is our home and we want to keep it in compliance with the rest of the Village archltecture. Please keep our town from becoming Irvine. carol and john scurlock 5370 Carlsbad Blvd. From: To: Subject: Date: Hello, Mike Bartley Scott Donnen Village building heights Thursday, March 01, 2018 5:06:49 PM Heights should be lower so as not to ruin the village look and feel. Thanks. From: To: Subject: Date: Penny Johnson Scott Donnen Village / Barrio Plan Thursday, March 01, 2018 1:53:30 PM I do not feel that the 45 ft. height limit should be allowed anywhere in the village OR the barrio. It is much too hlgb and detracts from the charming environment. 45 ft. does not enhance the village/barrio flavor. We ARE a village . We do not want to be a small city ....... whicb is what 45 feet heighls project. A:re not you supposed to keep the village environment ! Penny Johnson 760 729 4689. Zip code 92008 Sent from ll\Y iPad From: To: Subject: Date: Vanessa Scott Donnell Please keep Olde carlsbad buildings lower than 45 feet. Thursday, March 01, 2018 7:04:20 PM Downtown Carlsbad has narrow streets & looks too crowded already, It's hard to find parking & it's getting worse. Keep the buildings lower than 45 feet. Preferably 2-3 stories with no soil raising the basic level to make it higher. There is no need to make downtown Carlsbad a crowded mess. Bigger isn't better. Thank you, Vanessa Davis From: To: Subject: Date: Hello Scott, Megan Woolsey Scott Donnell Please keep buildings In carlsbad short Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:52:07 PM I just moved my family of six to Carlsbad from Northern California. We moved intentionally so we could live in a quaint old style beach community. We chose Carlsbad out of all the towns in California because we love the small- town feel of the village. It is so rare and authentic. I would like to urge you too keep our special, small town feel and not allow building taller than 45 feet. Thank you, Megan Writer/Editor 530-558-9643 www.meganwoolsey.com From: To: Subject: Date: Enchanted Seashells Scott Donnell RE BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE VILI.AGE Thursday, March 01, 2018 9:26:58 AM I am appalled by the lack of care, concern, an architectural integrity to assume that a tall building at the gateway to the village and the beach is appropriate under any circumstance and would be allowable. I demand that the maximum allowable height of buildings in the Carlsbad Village to be much less than 45ft (four story), and scaled down to something more compatible with the existing structures, Rosanne Bentley 33 year Carlsbad resident From: To: Subject.: Date: Hope Nelson Scott Donnell Re Village/Barno Master Plan Thursday, March 01, 2018 3:43:43 PM Regarding the current Village/Barrio Master Plan: I am a Carlsbad citizen concerned about the beauty, historical value, and livability of the Village/Barrio. My greatest concern is regarding preserving those qualities of the Village/Barrio through the Master Plan. I don't believe our goal is to be Santa Monica, with high-rise, big-city style. Carlsbad should compare more closely to Old Downtown San Clemente, where the buildings are lower, mostly 2 story, with none of the adornment on the top that tends to increase the presence as well as the overall height of structures. The idea of light coming into our Village/Barrio streets is important to the "beach vibe" that was discussed in the Envision Carlsbad Plan. 3 and 4 story buildings dwarf our narrow streets and , as a result, greatly reduce the amount of daylight washing our Village/Barrio. I recommend a 2 story height limitation with strict, specific and objective criteria for any variance. Alternately, if variances are beyond control, possibly no variance should be considered. I also believe we need a Design Review Board, who's responsibility would be to determine, based on objective criteria, what design influences would or would not be acceptable in the variety of districts in the Village/Barrio. Design Review could include responsibility for the potential designation of Historical Buildings. Design Review could establish objective design guidelines, ensuring neighborhood character is retained. The following gives an outline of what is done in the City of San Diego and discusses potential tax breaks for homes that are maintained as designated Historical Buildings. www sandiego.ff3ov/development- services/historjcal/faq/benefits#taxbenefits. Most importantly, please consider the property owners in the Village/Barrio as direct stakeholders. They warrant having a voice in concert with our City Council and Plann ing department, to establish specific goals and criteria for building in the Village/Barrio district. Please accept my comments. I hope they are seen as constructive suggestions. Sincerely, Hope Nelson Carlsbad, 92008 760-804-1945 design guidelines that affect all properties within the district to ensure neighborhood character is retained from: To: Subject: Date: Hello, amanda.macey@yahoo.com Scott Donnell Village Building Height Thursday, March 01, 2018 7:26:28 AM I am a Carlsbad 92008 citizen and r would prefer the maximum allowable height of buildings in the Village to be lower than 45 feet. I would prefer to see the maximum be more in-line with majority of the existing buildings (two stories). Regards, Amanda Macey From: To: Subject: Date: jdvitalie@aol.com Scott qonnell Negative on 45 foot height allowance Thursday, March 01, 2018 4:08:43 PM In relation to the Village/Barrio plan, put me on record as opposing the 45 foot height allowance on downtown buildings. The limit should be no more than what it takes to build a three story project. We have already seen out of town developers construct or gain approval to construct 4 story buildings on very small lots. These projects are too dense for the size of the lots and not in keeping with the village look and feeL If built, Carlsbad will be stuck with these monstrosities for generations, while the developers and city approvers will have taken their money and left long ago. James Vitalie 3037 Jefferson St Carlsbad, CA 92008 From: To: Subject: Date: Hi Scott, Rossman Scott Donnell Max height reduction Thursday, March 01, 2018 4:50:39 PM My name is Cherine Rossman and I live at 3871 El Camino Real, 92008. I would like the maximwn allowable height of builclings in the Carlsbad Village to be less than 45ft (four story). Thank.you, Cherine Rossman From: To: Subject: Date: Good evening, Mary Badiner Scott Donnell Maximum allowable building height Thursday, March 01, 2018 11:15:12 PM I would truly prefer tile maximum allowable height of buildings in the Carlsbad Village to be way less than 45ft (four story), down to something more compatible with the existing structures, please know our small beach town is why most people live here and if we wanted tall buildings we'd move downtown San Diego. Look at Oceanside - it's got more tall apartments and hotels now than ever before and it doesn't even feel like a beach town and you can't even see the beach from places you used to be able to see it from thanks to all the tall buildings. Please don't allow taller than two story buildings in our town. Thank you. Mary Badiner Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject Date: Hi, Scott. Barbara Hamilton Scott Donnell Maximum building height in Carlsbad Village Toursday, March 01, 2018 4:30:00 PM I believe that you ru·e hearing this from many stakeholders in -various venues. But I also feel the need to share my personal citizen's desire to reduce the maximum allowable height of buildings in the Village to be less than 45 feet. As it used to be. I recall a time when we heard from council members and citizens alike that a three story bujlding with third story set backs was the approp1iate height to allow growth while maintaining a pedestrian scale, and a sense of our special and rare village atmosphere. Once we lose our village, we become just like any other downtown. But worse, because we made decisions that destroyed a completely special place. Our village is a place where people come from across the county and the nation to visit---just because itis so special. We can grow and still maintain this, as other wealthy communities have also. BARBARA HAMILTON Master of Applied Science (MAS) Environmental Policy and Management LEED Green Associate Eco-Stream Sustainability barbara@eco-stream.com 760-717-6627 When rve try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe ---John Muir From: To: Subject: Date: Hi Scott, Bill Baer Scott Donnell Maximum height limit Thursday, March 01, 2018 9:16:32 AM Hope all is well. I am writing to voice my support for a maximum building height of 3 stories. We don't need buildings that high, unless it is in the business park Bill Baer From: To: Subject: Date: Baine Brown Scott Donnell Max building height Thursday, March 01, 2018 7:15:35 AM To Whom it may _concern, This letter is a request that you keep Carlsbad's downtown building height to a reasonable level (no more that 3 stories) in order to keep the "small town" feel (one reason why we get so many tourists). Our city can afford to say "no" to greedy builders. Elaine Brown 3812 Alder Ave From: To: Subject: Date: Hi , jo munday Scott Donnell Maintaining carlsbad Thursday, March 01, 2018 6:14:06 AM I'm a Britsih woman whose home bas been Carlsbad for 13 years, and we plan to stay. It's a tragedy that any developer or city council allows for the building of structures at 45ft in this sweet town. _In England, that would never pass. Brits see the bigger picture. What makes towns and cities is the character they exude. Please keep that in old Carlsbad, don't sell out! Maintaining the existing height and overall architectural essence of a town or city should be standard practice. I own 4 homes in old carlsbad and play plenty of tax! Don't allow it. Kind regards, Joanna. 7608890257 From: To: Subject: Date: Ryan Hopple Scott Donnell Lower max height Thursday, March 01, 2018 9:18:57 PM Four stories too high for fire fighting saftey/exiting and even less of us can have a good view From: To: Subject: Date: Tami Brennan scott Donnell Height restriction Thursday, Mardl 01, 2018 3:33:37 PM In response to this Facebook post. Dear Fellow Citizens Tf you would prefer the maximum allowable height of buildings in the Carlsbad Village to be less than 45ft (four story), down to something more compatible with the existing structures, please send your input to Scott.donne1J@carlsbadca.gov by March 1, 2018. The timeframe makes it rather urgent. Thank you. Please share and repost all over the place ! l definitely would prefer the maximum allowable height of buildings in the Carlsbad ViUage area to be less than 45 feet and more compatible with the height of e.xisting structures. Particularly along Carlsbad Village Drive and at a minimum one block north and south. £think this is essential to preserve the character of the viUage. Many people have moved to Carlsbad and come to visit because oflhc cl1aracter oftbe tovro. We should not destroy tbat. Tami Brennan Carlsbad resident Sent from my iPhonc. From: To: Subject: Date: Hi. Rebecca Tam Scott Donnell Height of buildings Friday, March 02, 2018 6:35:21 AM Please limit the height of buildings in the village to 45ft (4 stories). We want to keep the landscape of our town comparable to other structures in the area. Dr. David and Rebecca Tam 6260 Dartimrton Wav Carlsbad. CA 92009 C-u iRebecca ... please excuse any typos All contents of this message are private and may not be shared with anyone other than the intended recipient( s). From: To: Date: John Byrnes Scott Dennen Friday, March 02, 2018 7:58:24 AM CITY HEIGHT LIMIT SHOULD BE 3 STORY NOT 4 From: To: subject: Date: Hi Scott, Scott Engel Scott Donnell "Max Bldg Hgt Friday, March 02, 2018 6:52:00 AM I can imagine you're getting swamped with emails on this subject but it is my duty to get on the record. The city has standards and guidelines but it doesn't appear that the guidelines are followed. Rather, the maximum height specification is applied even when it runs contrary to the guidelines. Sadly. it seems that the maximum height of new buildings in the village must be reduced to hard wire responsible development in lieu bf comprehensive application of the standards and guidelines. Please re<luce the maximum height from 45 feet to no more than 35 feet, such that we don't kill the golden goose that is our village. We have plenty of density in new developments such as Robertson Ranch and Quarry Creek. Carlsbad has been in the top 3 in meeting state mandates on housing for years running. There's no pressing requirement to exploit the village. Best regards, Scott Engel, 4220 lsleDr, Carlsbad From: To: Subject: Date: Penny Johnson Scott Donnel! Village Core Sunday, March 04, 2-018 9:08:15 PM Sent from my iPad. 1 and many others are not at ease with the 45 foot height limit in the Village Core. No more than 2 stories should be allowed in keeping with the village environment that is supposed to be maintained. Four stoTies are not in line with that environment but is in line with the effort to bring developers into the villages that pay f'ees for parking and bring$$$$ to certain political mongers on the city council. Penny Johnson. 760 729 4689. 92008 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Larry Peifer Scott Donnell Lany Peifer Village Height Restrictions Tuesday, March 06, 2018 5:43:29 PM It's time to set the beight restrictions to a maximum of no more then 3 stories and I belie-Ve that is too much but it seems like a workable compromise. Four stories is absolutely unacceptable. What steps can be taken to make this happen? Lany Peifer 2610 ValewoodAve Carlsbad, CA 92010 Sent from my iPad From: To: Subject: Date: Scott, John Kusek Scott Donnell Master plan -great ideas Friday, March 09, 2018 5:33:5'\ PM Placing the rail tracks below grade will turn this into a first class village. The immediate increase in property values after project announcement should help to make up for some the cost, and I believe local residents would kick in a little too. The noise level of the train horn when dining at Caldo Pomodoro is painful. BTW I live east of 1-5 east of Buena Vista school, I still hear it a little bit. I can't imagine how bad it is for the people living in the Village. However, traffic circles are a bad idea, drivers CANNOT negotiate a tight turn, swing their heads around to three merging intersections, and attempt to guess what multiple merging drivers will do all at the same time. This is especially true the older you get. They are scary and stressful. good stuff, John From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Scott, Robert Wilkinson Scott Donnell Claudia Huerta; Garv Nesstm; Craig Williams today"s mtg Monday, March 12, 2018 7:27:55 AM PAPER ON ARCHITECTURE.pdf PAPER ON lliE GRAND.pdf Attached are restatements on my two primary comments on the latest MP. My view of your response to my original comments was that you did not fully understand what I was attempting to communicate. Lets try one more time, please read and I will hope to have a thorough and thoughtfu l dialog in today's get together. Please see attached pdfs Respectfully, Robert Wilkinson Wilkinson Design Group Land Planning + Landscape Architecture bob@wdesigngroup.net P.O. Box 4237 Carlsbad Ca, 92018-4237 760 434 2152 • PAPER ON ARCHITECTURE -RESTATEMENT March 2018 Here is my attempt to drill down to clarify in as few words as possible the intent of my position paper on additional standards for the architecture of building in the Village -Barrio Master Plan. The new standards are a response to that portion of our community that currently feels or believes that changes coming from the new MP will set in place they, the community, are losing more and gaining less in their Village. No matter what we do collectively as a community change is happening and will most likely accelerate in the near future for the Village -Barrio downtown neighborhood. The new Master Plan must be an effective tool in managing this change and meet the community's expectations. The paper makes the statement that no architectural style is denied from being used. It merely provides a short menu of styles that have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for use in these districts. The new standards would then provide a written vocabulary and graphic illustrations that can be used to achieve a desirable building. In the past and most pointedly the near past, the City's review -approval process where there are few if any participants schooled or trained in building design, has had only spotty success in producing new or remodeled building that the community will find appropriate for our Village. Structures that are acceptable and a positive enhancement to a desired atmosphere with a high level of character. The best example of this position is the "Grand Madison" were I believe that when its current construction brings it up and the exterior is being finished off the level of negative feedback from the community to the Council will greatly intensify causing political pain. That pain may well be near the time of the upcoming election. Those council members will then ask "why did the new MP put me in this position?" The paper's pHch is for additional standards for the core commercial area districts only, that is VC, HOSP, FC. The pitch for additional standards is an attempt to provide more guidance, more specific tools were both applicant and reviewer can better communicate for the desired outcome. The intent is to increase the percentage of building in these important districts that are viewed as desirable, and a positive enhancement by a much larger portion of the commuhity. Moving us to a condition of gaining more and losing less. II . PAPER ON "THE GRAND" IN THE VILLAGE -RESTATEMENT March 2018 Here is my attempt to drill down to clarify in as few words as possible the intent of my position paper on refining the document's incorporation on re-imaging Grand Avenue as "The Grand" in the Village -Barrio Master Plan. As a cyclist who lives in the area and rides in and through the V-8 often no one is more intere·sted in a great biking network. A pleasant, efficient and safe system or routes getting us around and through this area. To that end I have stated the following positions; A -My support for option 'B' one way auto traffic -west and angle parking on the north edge of the auto lanes that is back in. B -The raised / planted median separating auto and bike lanes have its width reduced from 12 to 4 feet and that additional 8 feet be moved into the pedestrian ramble. I make these request for the following reason, Grand is a series of five very short blocks from Harding to Washington. This produces the condition of many turning movements from two way auto traffic off of Grand's auto lanes south into these six cross streets. Additionally by placing a bi-directional cycle track along this series of short blocks can be viewed as a bit unusual. This arrangement with all the potential for turning movements off Grand to the south brings with it an increase in motorist missing cycle movement that is crossing in both directions. This condition can be made better and acceptable with the two request steps listed above as A & B. See the diagram of this issue below. I D D .,. tJ 1ii 1ii C: !l ~: • Cll Q) Cll E !I> ;; D ~~ il «l' Q) CJ) -C: a. a1 c:· C Q) .0 ~'5 .I!! .I!! -oE Q) l,:J N a> ~ 0 a. .... ~E :5 L-Cl! (I) cross street ffl-Gt] cross stree .auto lanes a auto lanes in'-==-: ---,-R> . . ~ .---L.j-. 0 ,.!!! C: D O.,!J!. -0 ~ j · C ~E: n I!! (!) A second issue are the considerable conflicts in a pedestrian/cycle rich environment that come from auto travel at excessive speeds. Traffic lights increase speed, the average speed on Grand is will over its posted max. Will the city make any changes on how the intersections crossings are handled? What is planned for the crossing at Madison street? From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Hi Scott, Kirk Moeller Scott Pannell Kevin Dunn: Ed McArdle Carlsbad Village Master Plan comments Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:59:03 PM Current Master Plan Building Section.pdf Proposed Building Sectlon.pdf I apologize for not getting this to you sooner. We appreciate you meeting with us recently to discuss our concerns surrounding a few of the new Draft Village Master Plan Document. As discussed we only have concerns with a few items located in Chapter 2 Land Use section 2.7.1 Village Center - Supplemental District Standards. The items are as follows: Item G.2 -We have no issues with the maximum building height being 45'-0". However, we do have some concerns with item #2 which states "Ground floor plate height: Minimum 14 feet". This statement appears to be vague and potentially could be a major issue with designing a quality 4 story building depending on the buildings specific type of construction. A concrete block, poured in place concrete and steel frame building would typically not contain a "plate". We believe that this regulation would better be de.scribed by specifying top of second floor finish floor, bottom of floor framing or best case scena rios specify the minimum ceiling height. We are very concerned that a 14' minimum required plate height would comprise the ceiling heights of the upper units to a point where they may not lease or sell due to low ceiling headroom clearance. We have attached two exhibits showing a section of a 4 story building per the current draft and what we proposed as an alternative for your review. Additionally, the ceiling heights most likely would need to be reduced even further than what is shown in the exhibits for HVAC ducts, plumbing piping, ffre sprinklers, etc. Item G.3a. -This item also appears vague to us. We have. concerns with limiting only the 4th floor to the minimum of 70% of floor area to the 10' setback. We feel that all floors should be considered under this requirement. This would allow for 70% of the 2nd, 3rd or 4th floors to be setback 101• We bell eve this would have less of a "tower11 effect from street level. With this modification, the building could be designed with unique 10' setback articulation options for all floors rather than just the 4th floor. This modification also would allow for more daylight to reach the street level if the 10' setback were located at the 2nd floor versus the 4th floor. Item G.3b. -This item is concerning for reasons similar to Item G.3a. Again, we believe that this requirement could apply to all floors and not only to the 4th floor. If the requirement included floors 2 -4 it would allow for additional articulation options as well as allow for more daylight to reach street level. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. As you are aware, the questions raised were brought up by a local developer experienced with these types of projects. We look forward to working with you to create the best possible Village Master Plan Regulations that will satisfy the needs of t he community as well as the needs of the ultimate building occupants. Thank you, Kirk Moeller MAA Architects 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 760A31-7775 ki rk@maaarchitects.com maaarchitects.com MIN. ROOF FRAMING RESIDENTIAL MIN. FLOOR FRAMING RESIDENTIAL MIN. FLOOR FRAMING RESIDENTIAL MIN. FLOOR FRAMING RETAIL L ROOF .. C) ~~ ex':,~ (.) 4TH FLR. , ' ~ .. 11- C) = z N -_, _J 00 w (.) 3RD FLR. ' -' c:c:> ' ' 2NDFLR. ' ' N , = w C> I- -• <( s:::t _J ...... a.. 1ST FLR. ' ' 4 STORY BUILDING SECTION CURRENT DRAFT I-I C) w I C) z 0 _J s co ~ ~ .. ' - ROOF ' MIN. ROOF FRAMING 00 ' " " (!) RESIDENTIAL = z o _ ...... ...J I -oo w (_) 4TH FLR. ' MIN. FLOOR FRAMING ~ .. I' I' RESIDENTIAL (!) oz ...---I _J -w co (_) 3RD FLR. ' MIN. FLOOR FRAMING ~-" I' (!) RESIDENTIAL oZ ...... __. _, -co w (_) 2ND FLR. ' MIN. FLOOR FRAMING N ' I' I' (!) RETAIL = z C>- -· 2 N <( ...--0:::: LL 1ST FLR. ' L 4 STORY BUILDING SECTION PROPOSED ' " I-::r: (!) w ::r: (!) z 0 ...J 5 co ~ ~ 0 I l.O ...:::t" ' I' From: To: Subject: Date: Sets a precedent Kevin OKeefe Scott Donnell No.4 story Wednesday, March 14, 2018 7:39:07 AM I am not aware Encinitas or solana etc have permitted 4 story in the beach area Sent from my iPhone STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE NATURAL. RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE.103 SAN DIEGO, CA 9:;!108-4421 (619) 767-2370 City of Carlsbad Attn: Scott Donnell 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 March 19, 2018 Re: Village and Barrjo Master Plan January 2018 Draft Dear Mr. Donnell: Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the City's January 2018 draft of the Village and Barrio Master Plan (Master Plan). Specific comments on the draft are described below by topic. I.n addition to the following specific comments, we have several more general comments. In our August 18, 2016 comment letter on the prior draft of the Master Plan, Commission staff commented that many of the street improvement projects described by the prior draft were too conceptual in nature and did not provide sufficient detail for the projects to be approved consistent with the Loca1 Coastal Program (LCP) without first amending the LCP to provide detailed project-specific design gu idance. City staff's response was to add Goal 1.5.2.C and associated policies and to specify that Chapter 4 Mobility and Beautification, which describes these conceptual projects, is not part of the LCP. Removing this chapter from the LCP does not resolve the issue we raised previously because many of the proposed LCP policies still reference Chapter 4 and specific street improvement projects described there. By cross-referencing to Chapter 4 and those projects, Chapter 4 should formally be incorporated into the LCP. However, m any of the street improvement projects described in Chapter 4 remain conceptual in nature and could have potential adverse impacts on coastal access. Without sufficient detail in the LCP policies, projects described. in Chapter 4 cannot be approved without first amending the LCP to apply detailed design standards to the projects. Tn the absence of more detailed design standards, the Master Plan should identify threshold triggers for when an LCP amendment is required. For example, the LCP should specify that street improvement projects that involve street reconfiguration, lane reductions. or loss of public parking spaces, or roundabouts that will involve lane reductions or loss of public parking will require an LCP amendment to assess how tbese projects might impact coastal access and to specify detajled project design standards before the projects can be approved w ith a coastal development pennit that is consistent with the Master P lan. Another reason that specificity in the LCP is important is because many of th e projects described in Chapter 4 will qualify as major public works projects that will be appealable to tbe Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 30603(a)(5) of the Coastal Act. Working March 19,2018 Page2 out the details in the LCP should facilitate processing of the required coastal development pennits. Section 6.3 (Permit Requirements) of the Master Plan appears to eliminate the existing village review permit (administrative, minor, or major) requirements. Instead, the City will process all non-exempt development with a minor site development plan, site development plan, or conditional use permit. How will this process change project approvals within the Village and Barrio? Note that relevant sections of the Zoning Ordinance that currently reference to village review permits (e.g., Chapter 21.35, Section 21.201.080) should also be amended as part of the LCP amendment to cetti fy the Village and Barrio Master Plat1. The following specific comments are grouped by topic. The first set of comments relates to the issue of specificity and the need to amend the LCP for some of the projects contemplated by the Master Plan. The second set of comments relates to land use and development standards outlined in the draft. The third set of comments focuses specifically on parking. The fmal set of comments are miscellaneous items that concern internal consistency of the Master Plan so that its requirements will be clear to users, rather than any specific coastal resource issues. Level of Detail in the LCP I. Policy 1.5.2.A.2 (p. 1-14) cross-references to the recommendations ofthe2017 Parking Management Plan. Will the Parking Management Plan be certified as part of the LCP? If not, the relevant recommendations should be described in this document and this cross-reference should be eliminated. Many of these recommendations are included in Chapter 4; however, Chapter 4 is not being proposed as part of the LCP. Those details shou Id be moved into the pottion of the plan that is part of the LCP. 2. Goal l.5.2.C (p. 1-16) references the conceptual projects in Chapter 4 and Policy 1.5.4.A. l (p. 1-18) references ''other street improvements iUustrated in the Master Plan." Chapter 6 indicates that Chapter 4 is not part of the LCP; however, by cross-referencing to Chapter 4, it again should be incorporated as part of the LCP. As described earlier in this comment letter, the LCP policies should make clear that implementation of many of the conceptual projects in Chapter 4 will require amendments to the LCP in order to provide specific development guidance. 3. Policy 1.5 .3 .A .4 (p. 1-17) calls for connections across the rail line. Some rail crossings are identified as community enhancement projects in the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program (NCC PWP/TREP). Additional crossings may require an amendment to the NCC PWP/TREP. 4. Policy l .5.3.A.7 (p. 1-17) calls for coordination with the City of Oceanside and Caltrans to evaluate potential connectivity impacts of future roadway improvements. This policy should reference to the NCC PWP/TREP because it describes many planned improvements to Interstate 5. 5. Policy l .5.4.A.3 (p. 1-18) calls for the City to support a study of reconfiguration of Ocean Street. A lthough reconfiguration is mentioned, this policy is insufficient March 19, 2018 Page 3 to support reconfiguration without an LCP amendment. This policy should be revised to clarify that if any reconfiguration is recommended~ an LCP amendment would be required to provide detailed project design guidelines. 6. Table 2-4 Parking Options -Parking In-Lieu Fee (p. 2-27) does not explain how fees will be determined or used. Some information is provided in Chapter 4; however, Chapter 4 is not proposed as part of the LCP. Those details need to be located in the LCP. 7. Section 2.8.2.G Landscaping states that all landscaping must meet the policies and requirements of the City's Landscape Manual (p. 2-75). The Landscape Manual is not certified as part of the City's LCP. By cross-referenci ng to the Landscape Manual here, it will be incorporated into the LCP. Please either remove this reference to the Landscape Manual to avoid making it part of the LCP, submit the Landscape Manual for review and ce1tificati"on as part of the LCP, include key provisions of the Landscape Manual to this section, or explicitly state here that the Landscape Manual is not part of the certified LCP and therefore, its requirements are not part of the coastal development permit review process for projects located within the coastal zone. 8. Section 4.5.2.E ln-Lieu Fees (p. 4~72) recommends consideration of westward expansion of the in-lieu fee parking program. This should be included in the LCP and shouJd state that westward expansion of the program will require an LCP amendment. 9. Section 4.3.1 l.G Beach Area StTeets talks about improved pedestrian and bicycle access and maintaining or increasing parking. It also calls for the city to reclaim the right-of-way areas that appear to have been privatized. There should be policies in Chapter 1 that address these issues. Land Use and Development Standa·rds l . Policy 1.5.1.A.2 (p. 1-11) encourages mixed use development in the ''Village core." "Village core" is not defined. ls this the Village Center District? This policy calls for retail uses on the ground floor. How much of the ground i1oor must the retail component occupy? Figure 2-2, Use Restrictions Map onl y references identified streets where "certain uses are not permitted on the ground floor street frontage". Wi ll any non-retail uses be permitted on the ground floor? 2. Table 2-1 Permitted Uses -Child Day Care Center (p. 2-7) is a conditionally permitted use within the Village Center and Hospitality Districts. However, unlike other educational facilities and uses, it does not require that such facilities be located above the ground floor. Should it be pi-ohibited on the ground floor in the areas shown in Figure 2-2 (Use Restrictions Map)? 3. Sectfon 2.6.7 Standards Modification (p.2-30 and 2-31) should prohibit modification of development standards within the Coastal Zone where such modifications would have adverse impacts on coastal resources, including, but not limited to, public coastal access, sensitive habitat and species, public views, etc. In addition, sub-section 2.6.7.B.3.g (Advancing other benefits as determined by the decision-making authority) and sub-section 2.6.7.B.4 (To enable superior building design) are too open-ended and could be utilized to endorse any deviation. These two sub-sections need to be clarified or deleted. March 19, 2018 Page 4 4. Section 2.6.8.D Live/Work Unit (p. 2-33) states that residential area located on the ground floor must be behind the commercial use. This should clarify that any ground floor residential space must be entirely behind the commercial space (i.e., no street frontage shall be residential area). Further, there should be some restriction on the amount of residential or accessory space located on the ground floor so that the ground floor area is predominantly dedicated to commercial use. For example, would a very shallow/narrow commercial space (e.g., only accommodating display shelves) along the street be sufficient to qualify as a live/work unit? 5. Section 2.7.1.l Village Center Supplemental District Standards-Good Neighbor (p. 2-41) describes two parcels in the VC District that border on Buena Vista Lagoon and states that development of these two parcels shall comply with Habitat Management Plan and other requirements, indudin,g slope protection and coastal access. Mello IT LCP Policy 7-6 calls fot a trail along the southern shore of Buena Vista Lagoon. This tra il is also shown on the City's draft Trails Master Plan. The trail should be called out in this document. 6. The Development Standards for Land Use District 9-Tourism SupportArea of the existing, certified Village Master Plan and Design Manual states ''For Army/Navy Academy and Carlsbad-by~the Sea Retirement Home, a long range master plan must be approved prior to the issuance of any pe1mits for improvements and additions to existing facilities. All future changes must conform to this approved Master Land Use Plan, or as amended by the original approving body.'' a. Section 2.7.3 Hospitality (HOSP) (p. 2-48) states that the Army/Navy Academy is exempt from the prohibition of educational uses on the ground floor in the HOSP district because it has a Master Site Plan to guide development of the campus. We have not identified any record of the Master Site Plan ever being incorporated into the LCP. What is the City's intention regarding the future use of the Army/Navy Academy property within the Village Segment? b. Is Carlsbad by the Sea Retirement Community '1Housing for Senior Citizens" on Table 2-1 Permitted Uses? If so, is it also exempt from the requirement to have only visitor-serving commercial uses on the ground floor? The existing Village Master Plan required a long range master plan for the Army/Navy Academy and for the Retirement Commuruty. Was a long range master plan ever developed for the Retirement Community? What is the City's intention regarding future use of this site? 7. Were any changes made to the sign provisions in this updated draft? We did not review that section as we previously had no comments on it. Parking L Policy 1.5.2.A.3 (p. 1-14) references a citywide TOM ordinance. If projects come before the Planning Commission/City Council ahead of a TOM ordinance, can TOM strategies be approved on a case-by-case basis? If so, what happens if the TDM ordinance is inconsistent with those previously approved strategies? Will a trolley or shuttle system be included in the TDM ordinance? March 19, 2018 Page 5 2. Policy 1.5.2.B .6 (p. 1-15) should explicitly detail what parking in-lieu fees can be spent on. What types of improvements and strategies to reduce parking demand are appropriate? 3. Policy 1.5.2.B.9 (p. 1-15) calls for annual monitoring of the parking system. This is critical because so many of the parking options would allow deviation from standard parking requirements as long as the referenced utilization studies document less than an 85% parking occupancy. The proposed plan policies all state that annual monitoring will be conducted consistent with the City's Parking Management Plan; so, we want to be cleat about the expectations for implementation in the future. 4. Section 2.6.5 .A. J (p. 2-19) prohibits curb cafes on Carlsbad Boulevar~ Carlsbad Village Drive, Laguna Drive, and any alley. Should curb cafes also be prohibited on Grand A venue between the rail corridor and Carlsbad Boulevard? The 2017 Parking Study indicates that on-street parking along Grand Avenu e was already at or near capacity. 5. Section 2 .6.5.A.4.a (p. 2-19) states that no curb cafes will be permitted on any street block that has an on-street public parking occupancy of 85% or more based on the most recent City-authorized parking study. Will the right-of-way use permit or encroachment agreement required under subsection 9 require removal of existing curb cafes if/when a future parking study indicates that on-street public parking occupancy has reached or exceeded 85%? 6. Table 2-4 Parking Options -Mobility Altematives (p. 2-25) a llows reduction in parking requirements based on ''an applicant-prepared parking study or other information." This should specify minimum information required to assess whether a reduction in parking requirements is appropriate. Why not tie this to the City's annual mooitoring referenced in Policy 1.5.2.B.9? In addition, there should be standards for assessing parking reductions, including an overall cap on the number of spaces that can be reduced t hrough implementation of other measures. 7. Table 2-4 Parking Options -New On-Street Public Parking (p. 2-26) describes the addition of new on-street public par,king as a method to fulfill parking requirements. Besides closing existing curb cuts, how else could private development create two on-street public parking spaces along the !i·ontage of property? If there are existing red curbs that are unnecessary, those should be opened up to public parking now and should not be credited toward an adjacent development. 8. Table 2-4 Parking Options -Shared and Leased Parking (p. 2-27) cross- references to CMC 21.44.080. CMC 21.44.080.2.d requi'res recordation of the joint use agreement. ls that joint use agreement recorded against both the lessee and lessor properties? It should be recorded against both properties as a means of notification and enforcement. 9. Section 4.5.2.D Shared and Leased Parking (p. 4-71) eliminates the requirement for long-term leases that was incJuded jn the prior draft. This version of the Master Plan indicates that shared or leased parking agreements could be renewable annually. The Commission has typically required long-term leases of at least 5 years for shared parking. How would the City track parking leases that are renewable on an annual basis? March 19, 2018 Page6 Miscellaneous The following comments relate to minor errors and inconsistencies in the Master Plan. These comments are focused only on internal consistency within the Master Plan to ensure clarity for use by the general public, rather than the substantive comments related to protection of coastal resources and uses provided above. L Policy 1.5.2.A.9 (p. 1-14) states that «this objective complements Objective 4.1.2." There is no Objective 4.1.2 in the January 2018 draft. See also Policy 1.5.2.B. 8 (p. 1-15) which includes a reference to Goal 2.1. There is no Goal 2.1. 2. Section 1.5.3 Placemaking on pages 1-18 to 1-19 should be Section 1.5._4. (Connectivity is akeady 1.5.3). 3. Table 2-3 'Parking Requirements (p. 2-22 to 2-24): a. What is the difference between a Professional Care Facility and a Residential Care Facility? The definitions in Appendix A do not clarify the distinction. ls a physical rehabilitation facility a Professional Care Facility and a nursing home is a Residential Care Facility? In addition, how are employees captured in the proposed parking ratios for these uses if the parking ratio is based on number of beds? b. The categories of uses presented in Tables 2-1 Permitted Uses (pages 2-2- 6 to 2-8) and 2-3 Parking Requirements (pages 2-22 to 2-24) are inconsistent For example, Mixed-Use, Professional Care Facility, and Residential Care Facility are listed under the Residential categmy in TabJe, 2-1, but are listed under the Lodging category in Table 2-3. In addition, Table 2-1 lists Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing under the Residential Categoi-y, but those uses do not appear at all in Table 2-3. c. Cinema is listed as a distinct use in the Other category (p. 2-24) and then also listed as an example of Public Assembly directly below that with slightly different parking requirements. 4. Section 6.3.2.A (p. 6-3) includes a cross reference to Section 5.3.2.C, but it should say "Section§.3.2.C." 5, Section 6.3.3.D. Coastal Development Permit (p. 6-5)-Subsection A states "Unless exempt, and except as provided in paragraphs B and C of this section ... " Which paragraphs B and C is this referring to? The B and C earlier in Section 6.3.3 regarding Site Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit? We appreciate the ti.me and effort that the City has unde11ake11 on this revised draft and have worked here to focus our comments on key Coastal Act issues. After you have had a chance to review these comments, we will make ourselves available to discuss them as needed. Thanks for your patience. Sincerely, flF--Erm. Prahler Coastal Program Analyst Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Donnell, simon angel <srangel69@outlook.com> Friday, April 06, 2018 10:33 AM Scott Donnell; Council Internet Email; Patricia Amador; T Childs; Michele Montenez; Mary Anne Viney; michael ajdour; Diana Diana; Planning Village/Barrio Master Plan I submitted a number of proposals fot changes to the V /B Plan. Since then I have heard nothing regarding these proposals. I am not sure what this means if anything. At this point I have no idea whether they were even considered and rejected or whether any have been incorporated into the plan. As the Village/Barrio Master Plan was rolled out, I arn opposed to its approval and implementation. This Plan has very little substance for Barrio residents despite the rhetoric and enhancing the subjective appearance of the community which is essentially creating a fa~ade. I am further opposed to the transitioning of the Barrio community to the commercial center of the Village. The standards regarding buildings and new developments may be appropriate in some parts of the downtown Village however they would be disastrous in the Barrio neighborhood. There is very little community of interest between the commercial Village and the Barrio residents as in the past, other than proximity. For the Barrio residents to support this Plan is to be complicit in their own demise. For these reasons I would ask that these two areas be bifurcated and that individual plans be developed to meet the future needs of both. This one size fits all approach is not in the best interest of Barrio residents or the Village as was plain to see in the proposed development at State Street and Carlsbad Village Drive. This Plan reinforces and encourages the proposing of inappropriate developments at inappropriate locations. Without substantial alterations to the Plan, I urge the city and residents to oppose and reject this Plan. 1 Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Stift <mstiftpe@gmail.com> Monday, April 09, 2018 12:08 PM Scott Donnell Village & Barrio Master Plan Hello Scott, I received a Notice of Public Hearing for the City's Village & Barrio Master Plan. The hearing is next week on April 18th and unfortunately I will not be available to attend. I do have one comment that I would appreciate the City Council consider: I feel the Proposed Boundary of the Master Plan be extended along the railroad track and future Coast Trail all the way to the south to the north side of the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. I think it is prudent planning for the Master Plan to include and allow consideration for both Village and Barrio access to Buena Vista Lagoon to the north, as well as Aqua Hedionda Lagoon to the south. The current Master Plan boundary includes the railroad/future Coast Trail extension to Tamarack Boulevard with either west/east side of the extension excluded from within the Master Plan. I have no issues wfth this. But I do think the extension should be increased all the way to Aqua Hediondo Lagoon. This will allow for better and coherent planning for hiking, bicycle, etc. along the future Coast Trail and any improvements such as railroad trenching improvements being considered by Council as part a whole picture and community cohcerns and desires. Thank you for your consideration, Michael Stift, a Carlsbad, CA 92008 Resident 7 60-644-1602 1 \ Scott Donnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Penny Johnson < pennyofcbad@roadrunner.com > Monday, April 09, 2018 9:30 PM Planning; Council Internet Email; Scott Donnell General Plan Sent from my iPad. My biggest objection in the General Plan is to the 45 ft.building heights allowed'in the village/ barrio. I am completely opposed to this desecration of the the VB. There is a picture on page 76 in Chapter II of the Village Plan tt,at illustrates the dark canyon created by 4 story buildings. It shows 4 story buildings lining a pedestrian walkway but the effect would be much the same along the streets of the village, creating a canyon that limits the sunshine and sky. This building height would also be a desecration of the neighborhood environment in the barrio. Both of these 2 areas should have an allowable building height of 25 ft. ( 2 stories), no more. Going higher would destroy the village charm and "beach town " environment and ambiance which is always referred to in the Plan as something we want to preserve. The barrio would lose its neighborhood and would not be a"barrio" ,showing great disrespect to the people who live there and heritage of Carlsbad. It shows how far astray the Planning Commission and City Council have deviated from Envision Carlsbad ..... and have succumbed to developers and$$$$ to the detriment of the citizens of Cbad who have voiced their opposition to this plan and you continually ignore. I find that quite despicable. Thankfully, Mr Blackburn and Ms Schumacher showed us they will listen and have an appreciation of what we have and what we are asking. Penny Johnson Carlsbad citizen for 41 years. 760 729 4689 1